most important historical event of past 200 years

[pinkmoon]

Think you must agree if the south had won at gettysburg the war certainly would have ended soon after

[Beowulf]

Hello what do you think was the most important historical event of the past 200 years I await your posts to see if you agree with what I have in mind

The invention of the internet.

[Errata]

When you look back the south only really got it wrong on one major battle which was gettysburg imagine if they had won that

Do you really believe that, pinkmoon?

If so it almost deserves its own thread. I cannot conceive of a statement more wrong at every level.

Sorry to disagree, but I couldn't let that pass.

Phil

It's not even a little the only thing the south got wrong, but it is the only major mistake made by Lee. Which would have been recoverable if McClellan was still in charge of the Union army. Hell it probably already would have been over if McClellan was still in charge. Many other mistakes were made, including having a Vice President who didn't believe that there should be a Confederate President, and a President who was anti-slavery and anti-secession. But in the romanticized view of the War where it was just Grant and Lee and their armies, yeah. Thats the only unrecoverable mistake.

[jason_c]

Probably WW1. Other than that it was the theories of Karl Marx, if you can call that an event. I suppose you could reduce it to the publication of Das Kapital.

[pinkmoon]

[QUOTE=Errata;273365]It's not even a little the only thing the south got wrong, but it is the only major mistake made by Lee. Which would have been recoverable if McClellan was still in charge of the Union army. Hell it probably already would have been over if McClellan was still in charge. Many other mistakes were made, including having a Vice President who didn't believe that there should be a Confederate President, and a President who was anti-slavery and anti-secession. But in the romanticized view of the War where it was just Grant and Lee and their armies, yeah. Thats the only unrecoverable mistake.let's face it with Jeb stuart away Lee was left blind he didn't have his usual good intelligence on enemy numbers also Lee had just lost his best commander stone wall Jackson who Lee said would have read battlefield perfectly and certainly would have occupied the heights before battle had started which would have made a huge difference.I think also the temptation of last big battle to destroy the northern army was just to tempting for lee

[Mr Lucky]

The Haber process

(or more accurately, scaling it up to industrial proportions)

[Mayerling]

I tend to agree with Phil that the two part World War of 1914-18 and 1939-45 was the major historical event. Problem is we are still too close in time to that double whammy to consider it objectively. What about Napoleons Wars, and the American - French Revolutions. What about the developement of airplanes, automobiles, electronics, wireless, radio, television, the internet, and space travel. Most of us are from the 20th Century, so we edge to the 20th Century events. This is why I pulled up Napoleon - I do note that some have pointed to the American Civil War as well. As for economics, I'd stick with the original (Adam Smith) whom Malthus, Ricardo, Marx, Keynes, and all other economists act as branches from the original tree.

Whatever it is, nobody will probably claim it was the horrible murder of five or so prostitutes in the East End of London in 1888, nor the sinking of the world's largest ocean liner on it's maiden voyage in 1912 - though both events are seminal ones in the second half of the 300 year period.

Jeff

[Phil H]

pinkmoon

I'm not sure now whether you are discussing Gettysburg alone, or the fact that the Confedercy could EVER have won the Civil War.

Let's just look at the wider picture first:

* the South had almost no industry - some northern states were more industrialised that the WHOLE south;
* there was in particular no armaments industry;
* they had less population and so would lose any war of "attrition";
* it was highly unlikely that Britain and France would ever recognise the South as a separate country while it retained slavery;
* the Confederacy was rent by division (in part based on the whole principle of States rights);
* units went to war ill-equipped because Governors of states would not release uniforms and guns etc;
* Lee's whole strategy (of taking the offense) was mistaken - both invasions of the north were soundly beaten and the losses sustained at Antietam and Gettysburg - not least in senior and middle ranking officers (who were irreplaceable - was suicidal. The North could always find more men, the South could not.

Errata has made some additional, brilliant, points, with which I fully agree.

Turning from the general to the specific.

At Gettysburg, on both the first and second days, Lee came close to forcing the Army of the Potomac (AoP) into yet another retreat - on both days he smashed two Corps - but he failed.

Lee's tactics, as Longstreet pointed out repeatedly (and I am no apologist for Longstreet's conduct in the battle), were counter-production and illogical. Lee may have possessed a quasi-religious belief in what his army could achieve, but the so-called "Pickett's Charge" was suicidal. Lee mis-managed the battle (maybe he was ill) and lost it. His excuses for not manoeuvring, for not seeking to get between the AoP and Washington then choosing HIS ground (a la Fredericksburg), are weak and flawed.

As to Stuart's absence, he was doing what LEE ordered him to do - Lee's orders were confused (as were many he issued during the campaign) and he has only himself to blame. Further, Lee did have cavalry available in not inconsiderable numbers, but failed to use them AT ALL - whether for reconnaissance, screening or anything else.

Finally on the failure to seize Cemetery and/or Culp's Hills on July 1. We cannot know whether Jackson would have been successful or not - though I agree that he might have used the impetus built up by the destruction of XI Corps. On the other hand, Jackson was not infalliable - as his participation in the Seven Days battle demonstrates.

Ewell was only ordered to try to take the hill, "if practicable" (Lee did not insist on it) - indeed, Lee seems to have dithered that evening about his grand tactical intentions. Ewell's Corps was disorganised, had to deal with prisoners in large numbers, was tired and there was no obvious route to attack. Moreover, Otis Howard had von Steinwehr in position with many guns on Cemetery Hill even at around 4pm. Ewell had no where on his front to position his guns to counter the Union batteries.

In some ways more important and germane - Lee made no rigorous attempt to support Ewell. He allowed Longstreet and Hill to make bland excuses, made no attempt to bring Cemetery Hill under artillery fire from Seminary Ridge (where he had plenty of cannon) and he ignored Anderson's untouched troops as well as others, who might have been used to storm the Hill with Ewell.

I do not try to excuse Ewell, though I think his decision was not unreasonable - but once again Lee has to shoulder much of the blame.

Sorry to have gone on at such length in a thread not about this - but the initial and subsequent assertion by pinkmoon were so "wrong" as to need refuting IMHO.

Please come back at me, pinkmoon. I am sure you disagree root and branch with what I have said. If you think it advisable, by all means open a new thread.

Phil

[pinkmoon]

I think the south always banked on England helping them out mainly to get cotton flowing back into country.Also the south always believed public opinion in the north would have ended the war certainly if Lincoln hadn't been re-elected the war would have finished.

[Phil H]

But Lincoln WAS re-elected.

There was never anything but a vain hope that England (Britain) would ever come in on the side of the Confederacy. Nor was recognition realistic while slavery remained. Do you really believe Palmerston would have risked war with the USA and the possible loss of Canada? Look how the Trent affair was resolved.

Britain already had increasing access to Indian or Egyptian cotton.

Phil
(My first post from my mobile phone!)

[Errata]

But Lincoln WAS re-elected.

There was never anything but a vain hope that England (Britain) would ever come in on the side of the Confederacy. Nor was recognition realistic while slavery remained. Do you really believe Palmerston would have risked war with the USA and the possible loss of Canada? Look how the Trent affair was resolved.

Britain already had increasing access to Indian or Egyptian cotton.

Phil
(My first post from my mobile phone!)

You are not wrong, and yet I'm not 100% sure of that. France would have recognized the South. But by necessity it would have been in a odd way. The famous quote that "South Carolina was too small to be a country, and to large to be an insane asylum" was not wrong. If the Confederacy with some kind of unifying government continued, it would have been easy. But if it didn't, well it's hard to have a relationship with each individual state. So they would not have been recognized as countries, but instead as trade organizations. You don't send a political ambassador, you send a trade ambassador. It's not as if the military assistance of Georgia would be of any worth. And all things being equal, no state showed any signs of wanting any relationship with foreign countries outside of trade. And England and France already had these kinds of relationships in Africa, where they were reluctant to recognize sovereignty or nationhood. Because if you don't recognize the sovereignty of Dutch colony, you don't have to involve the Dutch. And I think England would have had the same relationship. The Court of St. James would not be sending an Ambassador of her Majesty's Government, but a high ranking member of the Trade Commision would have suited the south perfectly well. They detested slavery. But only in principle. Not in action. Just look at Rhodesia.

[pinkmoon]

Russia and France told the confederate ambassadors that they would recognize the confederate states as seperate country if England did we didn't even meet the ambassadors sent because of the slavery issue quite rightly so

[Phil H]

As I said, Britain would never have risked war with the USA - given the dangers that would create for Canada. Again, I cite the way in which the Trent crisis was resolved - britain took precautions but did not risk war.

HAD, and it is a big supposition, someone like McClellan won the presidency of the USA from Lincoln - then the war would surely have been resolved by some sort of restitution of the USA with the South's pre-war concerns dealt with. Had the South won its independence AND BEEN RECOGNISED AS SUCH BY THE NORTH - then the UK might have recognised it.

Trade delegations do not represent diplomatic recognition - so don't let's pretend it does. Even that would have been difficult while the Northern blockade was in place.

But you have come a long way from your original statement:

When you look back the south only really got it wrong on one major battle which was gettysburg...

Do you still contend that was true?

Phil

[Scott Nelson]

November 19, 1993 - the day Siouxsie and the Banshees broke up.

[Mayerling]

Russia and France told the confederate ambassadors that they would recognize the confederate states as seperate country if England did we didn't even meet the ambassadors sent because of the slavery issue quite rightly so

Again, this web site refuses to take a message I typed out regarding these points for no reason.

1) The Confederacy spoiled it's economic position with France and Britain by embargoing cotton in 1861 to show it's muscle to them as a threat. Britain then started using Indian and Egyptian Cotton instead.

2) Due to the Orsini Assassination plot and result in 1858, Prime Minister Palmerston was less than friendly to Napoleon III's frequent suggestion of joint mediation of the war or recognition of the Confederacy. Palmerston had knuckled under to prosecuting Dr. Simon Bernard, an ally and co-conspirator of Felice Orsini who got the bombs manufactured in Birmingham that Orsini used when he killed 14 people in his attack on the Emperor. Bernard was acquittend, and Palmerston was pressured to leave office from 1858 - 1859. Napoleon (touched by a dying statement written to him by Orsini, reminding the Emperor of his youthful support for Italian unification) supported The Kingdom of Piedmont - Sardinia in it's war with Austria from 1859-1860. As Napoleon was gambling on a Northern defeat so that he could recognize the South (his support of "nationalities") and so he could prop up his puppet Maximillian on the Mexican throne (his desire for French "gloire"), Palmerston did not trust him on the American Civil War at all.

3) Russia still hated France and Britain for the Crimean War, and France had also shown support in 1863 for the Polish insurrection that year. Tsar Alexander II had freed the serfs in 1861 and did not favor recognizing a government that supported slavery). Invited by Lincoln, the Russian fleet sailed to New York City in November 1863 and this showed the British and French that in a renewed conflict with Russia they would be able to rely on Northern ports for attacking the coasts and cities and shipping of their enemies.

Jeff