General Discussion

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)

21. As per Paul kennedy in Rise and Fall of the Great Powers...

Reply to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 04:50 PM

Nov 2012

In Rise and Fall of the Great Powers by Paul Kennedy, it becomes pretty obvious that the south had such as small, almost insignificant manufacturing base (relative to the north), an even tinier means of transporting that material (relative to the north), and a manpower base that was not large enough to replace its losses (absolute numbers), that all things being equal, it was only a matter of time before the South was dramatically overwhelmed by the north's capacity to wage war.

It's a wonderful book that deals with both the conflicts and the economics of the great powers in the post-Hapsburg world, and one I'd recommend to anyone with even the slightest inclination to how and why conflicts have gone the ways they have over the past 400 years.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

65 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Civil War Question [View all] DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 OP

Probably. SheilaT Nov 2012 #1

The South was doomed from the start maxrandb Nov 2012 #23

They had some pretty lousy generals, too Art_from_Ark Nov 2012 #47

can you explain these economic policies that are similar? brokechris Nov 2012 #50

A couple of examples maxrandb Nov 2012 #65

"Low" commitment to public education doesn't even come close. One state even outlawed public ed. ieoeja Nov 2012 #30

The South was doomed from the start Drale Nov 2012 #2

Weren't The French Every Bit Anti-Slavery As Great Britain DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #3

I'm not quite sure but Drale Nov 2012 #5

Actually, the French tried. Their intent to aid the CSA ended on Cinco de Mayo. ieoeja Nov 2012 #32

The British ruling class DID NOT detest slavery, but the British industrial working class sure as coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #43

Wait. Le Taz Hot Nov 2012 #62

Yes, the South was doomed from the start RomneyLies Nov 2012 #4

Funny. Was it Lincoln didn't have decent generals, or a decent leader of generals. bluestate10 Nov 2012 #25

The single biggest mistake of the Civil War can be summed up in a single name RomneyLies Nov 2012 #29

6-1 against Lee. Retreated 6 times anyway. And stopped at the Virginia border with Lee routed. ieoeja Nov 2012 #33

And despite the South's huge agricultural output, Aristus Nov 2012 #6

The question is absurd on its surface, as hindsight coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #7

Ken Burns Made The Argument. I'm Just Echoing It./nt DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #10

Actually, I think it was Shelby Foote thucythucy Nov 2012 #26

Its military could hardly have fought a guerilla non-conventional war in any coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #38

Your point on the "slaveocracy" is well taken thucythucy Nov 2012 #40

Shelby Foote indulges in a species of the logical coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #36

There is one big problem with your thesis. bluestate10 Nov 2012 #11

This message was self-deleted by its author DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #15

Didn't Lincoln Sack McClellan For Lack Of Aggression DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #16

Yes, Lincoln fired McClellan when he failed to pursue coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #37

Before Washington fell to the Army of Northern Virginia, chances are that the North would coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #35

I believe it was Shelby Foote who was arguing that in the documentary. JVS Nov 2012 #8

I Could Be Wrong But I Thought I Remember It From The PBS Special By Ken Burns In 1990 DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #9

Shelby Foote was the historian interviewed who said that the North had one hand behind its back JVS Nov 2012 #12

TY For The Clarification DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #18

Shelby Foote was EVERYWHERE in the film Brother Buzz Nov 2012 #14

And James McPherson--a far more progressive historian-- thucythucy Nov 2012 #27

Foote is the better writer, imo, but McPherson is the better historian (and coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #42

South was doomed, only lasted as long as it did because South had better generals at first. yellowcanine Nov 2012 #13

I don't think that they were doomed flood99999 Nov 2012 #17

I agree DearAbby Nov 2012 #34

The handwriting was on the wall when New Orleans fell. Tierra_y_Libertad Nov 2012 #19

Um, excuse me, what battles did Grant lose? I can't think of any offhand. He coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #39

The Wilderness and Cold Harbor to name 2. Tierra_y_Libertad Nov 2012 #46

"Loss" is a loaded term to describe the outcome of either battle, as Grant was pursuing coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #52

Which is what I said. He lost (battles) but won the war. Tierra_y_Libertad Nov 2012 #63

The general strategy was established very early on by General Winfield Scott. His coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #64

It all depended on how willing the North was to wage the war to its conclusion. Kaleva Nov 2012 #20

As per Paul kennedy in Rise and Fall of the Great Powers... LanternWaste Nov 2012 #21

Another factor which i've never seen discussed in this context is that the South was hedgehog Nov 2012 #22

Good Point flood99999 Nov 2012 #24

The South was doomed as long as Are_grits_groceries Nov 2012 #28

Yes. If Grant had been the North's primary general from the start, the war never would have lasted aaaaaa5a Nov 2012 #31

Oh, please. I can bash McClellan with the best of them, but the Army of the Potomac coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #41

I had a very knowledgeable civil war historian tell me that Lincoln aaaaaa5a Nov 2012 #44

I must take issue with the first statement of your second paragraph. I know of no historian coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #51

Atlanta ThoughtCriminal Nov 2012 #45

Certainly they were. OTOH there is a very good argument made that it would have been Egalitarian Thug Nov 2012 #48

That is a specious argument (no offense) and does not give credit to the quasi-mystical coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #57

"Given British and French demand for Southern cotton," the South was exhausing its land. AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #58

The South could have won davidn3600 Nov 2012 #49

Well, your argument is belied by the fact of Lincoln's re-election in 1864 and by morale coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #55

Yes, the North had the better soldiers and generals graham4anything Nov 2012 #53

You might want to review your history a little bit, specifically the coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #54

to use a parallel with today graham4anything Nov 2012 #56

At Chancellorsville, Stonewall Jackson successfully attacked Hooker's exposed coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #59

Jackson's flank attack wrecked the XI Corps NoPasaran Nov 2012 #61

Since the Confederacy DID lose, the answer is yes. WinkyDink Nov 2012 #60