|View single post by Texas Defender|
|Posted: Tue Nov 1st, 2011 09:20 am||
For the most part, your recent postings support what I said in post #99.
Our main disagreement seems to be over whether or not British troops coming from Canada could have made a great nuisance of themselves by forcing the federals to fight a two front war in effect. I don't see how having its forces divided (Especially early in the war) would not have had a greatly deleterious effect on the northern war effort.
We apparently agree that even more significant damage would have been done by the British Royal Navy cooperating with the Confederates. In that case, the blockade would have been impossible to enforce. (And American commerce on the high seas would have been devastated).
As for the previous wars with the British, the Americans could never have won a military victory over the British Empire. All that they could do was to accomplish a draw by continuing to fight until the British calculated that the price to continue was higher than they were willing to pay. That is precisely how things turned out.
The southerners were in the same position in their fight against the federals. It was never their objective to: "Conquer the north" or to permanently occupy it. It was their plan to continue to fight until the northerners decided that it wasn't worth the price to continue their effort to: "Subjugate" (Your word, and an appropriate one) the southerners.
Even without overt British assistance, the southerners were still: "In the game" until the re-election of Mr. Lincoln gave the signal that the northern people were willing to pay whatever the price was to achieve a military victory.
Last edited on Tue Nov 1st, 2011 11:37 am by Texas Defender