Re: United States Civil War

Donald Hosford wrote:
> 
> Christopher K Smith wrote:
> >
> > ----------
> > > From: Phillip E. Pournelle <pepourne@nps.navy.mil>
> > > To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
> > > Subject: United States Civil War
> > > Date: Friday, September 05, 1997 4:03 AM
> > >
> > > The biggest problem I have had with alternate histories such as
> > Sterling's
> > > Guns of the South, is the lack of accuracy in the historical
analysis.
> >
> > Even though this is kinda off topic...I guess I will through my two
cents
> > in.  First...I thought Turtledove wrote Guns of the South....maybe
not.
> > I agree that there was no way the South could have won a military
> > victory...It could have possibly made Lincoln and his generals
> > look bad enough to cause the North to pull out of the war.
> >
> > Christopher K Smith
> 
> I read that book...Yes Turtledove wrote it...The south won because
time
> travellers from an alternate future came along, and gave the south
> ak-47s, and all the ammo, and instant coffee/food packs they could
eat.
> They were able to make the war too expencive (on men/supplies) for the
> north, so the north settled.
> 
> It rubs me the wrong way too...but the writting was pretty good.
> 
> Donald Hosford

You guys are missing the point, the South wasn't trying to win a
military victory, but a political one. If they could make the war costly
enough politically for the North the partition of the country would be
accepted as a fait accompli. A victory at Gettysburg, for example would
have been too costly; politically speaking; to keep the war effort
going. You must remember that there was strong	opposition to the war in
the North all during that time. In hindsight it looks inevitable, but at
the time no one knew what would happen.