GDG- Lost Cause and Inevitibility

George Connell georgeconnell at
Sun Jan 22 16:51:07 CST 2012


I accept that retaining the political will was not a given--which I why I spelled it out. 

The other things you mention are important considerations, but the fact is that North overcame them all. 

I still don't understand why maintaining this position makes one a 'Lost Causer.'



On Jan 22, 2012, at 5:38 PM, ATMackeyJr at wrote:

> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
> The many advantages the confederacy had.  Their huge amount of  territory 
> had to be conquered and held, which means siphoning off troop strength  for 
> garrisoning areas, thus negating the manpower advantage the Federals  had.  
> They had a tremendous advantage in leadership at the beginning  of the war.  
> They had interior lines, which meant they could reinforce  areas faster than 
> the Federals could move troops to reinforce points, a further  negation of 
> the manpower advantage the Federals had.  What could they have  done if Lee 
> hadn't lost so much manpower in fruitless attacks such as Malvern  Hill?  
> And the Federals retaining the will to fight is not a given.
> Best Regards,
> Al Mackey
> In a message dated 1/22/2012 5:15:24 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
> georgeconnell at writes:
> Esteemed  GDG Member Contributes:
> I have long been bothered by the belief that anyone  who maintains that the 
> South's defeat was inevitable as long as the Union  retained the will to 
> fight is a  "Lost Causer!"
> I think this is an  utterly realistic assessment of the 'correlation of 
> forces' and a great  example of why the South was nuts to risk war.
> What am I not  getting?
> George
> 26ª11'56"N   81ª48'19W"
> Which is about  as far south as one can  get
> ----------------
>  -to unsubscribe
> for  Archives
> ---------------- -to unsubscribe
> for Archives

More information about the Gettysburg mailing list