Why the Confederacy Failed to Recreate
the American Revolution

Another article written by a stinking yankee. The only thing the civil war proved conclusively was that if you try to quit the gang, they will kill you. Kind of like the Mafia or the Crips and Bloods.

The Confederacy lost, in large part because most of the country didn't agree with their cause. They certainly tried most, if not all of the crapulous things the Democrats have more recently done. 1. They tried to ship all military weapons to southern states. 2. They repeatedly sent thugs into new territories to terrorize people to create pro-slavery states. 3. When called on his families thuggery, a prominent southern Democrat congressman beat the brains out of his critic. 4. They tried to have slaves, or fractions of slaves, used in apportionment of representatives to the U.S. House. 5. Their 'Donors', when popular opinion was swinging against slavery, hired mercenaries to attempt to overthrow governments around the Caribbean, to create a "Golden Circle" of nations exporting slaves. I could go on. The Confederacy DESERVED to fail.

Oh, and the Confederacy followed the model of Jamestown, the basis of the crapulous 1619 project. Lincoln made it very clear the inspiration of America should be Plymouth Rock and Freedom, not Jamestown and oppression.

More revisionist history, and more disappointing reportage from the formerly-authoritative National Review. The war was not fought about slavery, it was fought for the sovereignty of the states over the hegemony of Washington. The agrarian South had long resented being treated as a vassal colony of the industrial North, and abolitionist intervention in Southern affairs was merely a precipitating factor. The majority of the Southern states did not succeed until Washington began its campaign of aggression, invading the South to punish the rebellious, breakaway states. In other words, the situation was not unlike today: a few urban population centers imposing their will upon what they perceive as unelightened fly-over country.

The Civil War started decades before 1860. The Democrats constantly tried to fix things to give themselves unbridled power. Slavery and the imported African slave was simply a symptom and a symbol of that power. People forget that Democrats enslaved people of all races. Africans were merely the least expensive to obtain. Like any political action, there were consequences to rebellion and union. But the Constitution remained. Democrats continued to the present, attempting to undermine the Constitution, with lies and slander about what it means. Penumbras... interpretations... hogwash. I always learned the first action of the Civil War began with shots fired, by the Confederacy, at Ft. Sumter. While Lincoln declared that an insurrection existed, the Confederacy had already declared their rebellion and begun raising levies. Had Lincoln NOT called an insurrection and begun preparations for war, all indications are that the South would have attempted a takeover, by force, of the Northern States.

National Review is no longer a reliable source of truth.

Some Yankee writer had to fill space so why not rewrite history fanning the flames of racism while doing it. This is garbage history in garbage history out. National Review sucks wet rope.

The south lost because the north was more industrialized and had more people. Once McClellan was removed by Lincoln, the north started to use it's industrial and numerical strength to just overwhelm the south. McClellan was great at organizing a army, once organized, he didn't want to use it. McClellan had a more than 15,000 troops at Antienam that were never used. It took the north roughly two years to start taking this war seriously. It was that visit from Lincoln to McClellan after the battle of Antienam that started the turn around. Gettysburg and Vicksburg were the deciding battles of the Civil War. The south couldn't compete with the north's industrial strength. Add in the blockade of the south from the ocean, and the north's occupation of the Mississippi river, and the south was surrounded.

The confederacy lost, because their [cotton is king] economic system of using forced labor [slavery] to produce a cotton crop for export and domestic use proved to be a failure. Meanwhile, the farms on the great plains, midwest, and Northern states had mechanized/modernized. They were able to feed the country even while the Republic fielded the largest Army and Navy in their History. The south experienced food shortages and starvation during the war. Forced agricultural labor is not cost effective as well as being cruel and immoral.

The Civil War was fought over states rights. Only 10% of the south owned slaves. My mother said she remembered old men sitting on porches talking about the war, this was in Louisiana. She said they were talking about not having any weapons at the end and were just throwing rocks. Now these men didn't own slaves and slavery was vile and needed ending. But the war was fought for state's rights which today, we could use a bit of.

Bow down and kiss the ring of the all mighty, centralized government we have in DC where Pelosi, Biden, AOC, Waters reign supreme. Who cares about State rights? Let LA county voters tell the people of MT and WY what they should do about oil and gas and cattle.

If the War Between the States was fought over states' rights, why is it that every state's articles of secession specifically mentioned slavery?

stupid writer, knows only the drivel dogmas of a simpleton, worthless article

Had the slave states and other reckless politicians not attempted to expand their "peculiar institution" into the western territories the Civil War never would have occurred. Yes, the War was all about slavery and that cannot reasonably be denied, regardless of the individual and collective motivations of those who fought for the southern cause. Good and noble men do fight for bad causes, that has always been true.

I personally love Yankees teaching us our own history. The South was not some homogenous entity. All Southerners were not Scarlett O'Hara or Rhett Butler. Most Southerners did not own plantations, did not own slaves, and only fought because " you came down here." Nothing is more uniting than a common threat. The North won because it conscripted Irish and other European immigrant boys literally right off the boats in NYC, Boston, and Philadelphia. This was not popular. Neither was the practice of fat cat Northern coward draft dodgers, rich men and politicians, paying poor boys to fight in their stead. For all you holier than though types, check out the Draft Riots in NY. Your beloved city's denizens burnt down a black orphanage, destroyed churches, and lynched a few people. The truth is slavery was on its way out with industrialization and technological advances in agriculture. Think of if instead of war we had simply let science, industry, and progress do the work of extinguishing the last vestiges of slavery in the deep South and not blood and bullets and a generation of dead and mangled men.

Such matters can be seen in hundreds of ways. Perhaps the bigger question is why the American Revolution was successful. Was it because the British had many other concerns all around the world and could not concentrate totally on North America?

# 15, the problem with your suggestion is that it is based on hindsight. The men who faced the challenges of the 1860's did not and could not have known what the technologies of later decades might yield up. They had to deal with the world as it was in their time, and only on that basis can they fairly be judged.

Retaining slavery was indeed an overriding cause for the South but the rights of the states were also a huge consideration. It's why Lee fought for the South and his State of Virginia. It's also why the military units were named after their states on both sides ie: The 34th Georgia, 101st Pennsylvania, 69th New York, etc. People considered their states as almost individual countries. There were also a lot of people in the South who thought slavery was an abomination but were rightfully concerned about what would happen if you suddenly loosed almost three million poor, uneducated and unskilled people on the countryside. I wish slavery had never occurred. Just think, we would only need half the prisons, cops, and judges that we require now and our welfare costs would be a lot more manageable if we had never brought Africans into the US. As General Patrick Cleburne said, "I am with the South in life or in death, in victory or in defeat . . ." I believe the North is about to wage a brutal and unholy war on a people who have done them no wrong, in violation of the Constitution and the fundamental principles of government. They no longer acknowledge that all government derives its validity from the consent of the governed. They are about to invade our peaceful homes, destroy our property, and inaugurate a servile insurrection, murder our men and dishonor our women. We propose no invasion of the North, no attack on them, and only ask to be left alone."

AS #18 mentioned briefly. It is the United STATES, not United COUNTIES.

You can seize on States Rights, which is an important issue, to defend the Confederacy, but the historical record of Reconstruction and the Jim Crow era, make it pretty clear that slavery and all of it's after affects were the 'just cause.' Even today, even here, some won't admit it. You make a deal to be an American citizen. You adhere to the goals that make the American Experiment unique in history, or you don't. Does not matter where you came from and it certainly does not matter what color you skin is. The compromise to accept slavery in some colonies in order to form a country of 13 states to fight the British, was a very bad idea, but vital to winning independence. It is fitting that slavery and it's defenders were a gift of the British. What a cost to rid the country, the experiment, of the idea that anyone could 'own' another human. Face reality. The 10% everyone loves to bring up, ruled the other 90%. Otherwise the 90% would have eliminated slavery themselves and avoided the bloodiest war in American history. They did not and remnants of that mind set echoed for decades. I sort of understand why some, who are in agreement about a lot of things happening now, feel compelled to spit out the term 'Yankee' with as much bile as possible with typed words. They are trying to push the sorry record of the slave states on to someone else. BTW, I think every statue should stay and every aspect of that war, and the decades after it, should be a core education for every student. We really should not forget any of it. It was the best and the worst of this country.