Why, How, and Why? Part 2
>Clearly in looking back we can see that the South didn’t have much of a chance, so why do it?
–Firstly, I never believed in the Lost Cause. I never believed that the Confederacy never had a chance. But that is another story.
Honor was/is a major factor and standard of life in the South. They sincerely saw the foot of the North as an invader. They honestly believed that there was such a rift in culture between the North and South that there was virtually nothing in common between the two. Why should they accept rule by what they consider a foreign power? It was truly a fight for independence for them. They were being oppressed. Their way of life was being infringed upon. The constitution guarantees “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (property originally)”. The United States and abolitionist groups violated the constitution when they infringed upon the South’s right to the pursuit of happiness. The South had to stand up and fight what they saw as a wrong being dealt to them. To them, it was not a civil war, but a war of independence. That, my friend is worth fighting and dying for.
>How could the South have fought the war in a way in which they could have won?
–It is apparent that the battle tactics of the Confederacy were, in many instances, heads and shoulders above those of the Union. I am a very pro- Union person, so I am not showing favoritism to the Confederacy with this comment. I do not believe that the war could have been fought any differently on the battlefield and yield a significant change. James Longstreet says it best in his book…it was about psychological warfare. The Confederacy neglected to wage war on the Union civilians. Oh, yes they took the fight to the boys in blue, but that is not who they had to defeat. For an example. look at the great success Sherman had on the civilian population during his march to the sea. In order to win, The Confederacy had to change northern public opinion. To do that, the public had to be directly affected. Perhaps more war party excursions to the north and bringing the destruction to the civilian would have dealt an impact. Now, I am not going to get into the logistics: size of the various Confederate armies, protecting Richmond while invading the north, etc. That would simply take too much time to get into. But, had the Confederacy waged fierce psychological warfare against the civilian population of the north and boarder states, it is more than a probability that so much public pressure would have been placed on Lincoln…other alternatives would have had to been sought out.
>Why didn’t they fight a war in a way that they could have Won?
–This was a time where modern warfare technology clashed with Napoleonic tactics. So many generals in the upper echelon of command had the classic Napoleon style mindset. Battle was waged in a certain way. You fought the enemy troops, took prisoners, and so on. Don’t get me wrong. There were certain Confederate units among the boarder states that employed the use of psychological warfare, but many of them were just plain criminals. Where do you think the James Gang came from?? lol. The few leaders that thought “outside the box” when it came to waging war were met with resistance. Quite frankly, I do not believe that the current battle mindset allowed for the wide use of this type of unconventional warfare. – Tony G.
