View single post by 9Bama
 Posted: Mon Apr 4th, 2011 08:33 pm
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 

Joined: Mon May 10th, 2010
Posts: 106

  back to top

Hosford1 wrote: Hank - I've thought a little harder about your definition of the "Lost Cause" myth. I've never seen it in that light. Regardless of whether your definition is the mainstream postition of the "Lost Cause", it certainly is a fresh perspective for me. From some sources I've read the South had over a hundred thousand men at the end of the war that were evading. That is significant.  That being the case, however, wouldn't have shifted the disparity - 100,000 men spread out over the armies of Kirby Smith, Johnson and Lee and others would have certainly prolonged things but doubtfully changed the outcome. 

Regardless, that point is certainly a good rebuttal to the "Lost Cause" idea.

What is the advantage of having  100,000 starving, shoeless, weaponless, soldiers who had plenty of spunk, but that's about all.

when you speak of resources, you must consider things like rations, ammo, replacement rifles, canon, and ammo for them, railroad rolling stock, fuel, telegraph and other communications and all of the myriad ot things needed to sustain an army. the south was outta all of them, and they were gettin a bit short on senior leaders as well.


BTW, I think Hank's definition of the lost cause is closer than is yours. The lost cause, as developed in the late 19th / early 20th centuries was almost mystical.

 Close Window