What Was The Defining Moment In American History?

[KG_CrimsonTrooper]

I personally think what the Gov't did to the Indians was just a stepping stone to getting what they want NO matter what had to be done...

then they turned their attention to stealing Texas and California from Mexico

But realistically,all mexican jokes aside

I think what the Indians are doing to America is Poetic Justice with all these Indian Casino's popping up, more power to them!

[KG_Jag]

Let's see.....

The Comanches drive the Apaches out of Texas. The Spanish/Mexicans try to drive the Comanches out, but are almost driven out themselves. To form a buffer between the traditional Spanish/Mexican settlements, the Mexicans invite Angle settlers into that buffer zone. These Texicans defeat and drive out both the Comanches and Santa Anna's boys twice--once in the Texas Revolution at San Jacinto and again (with a little help) when he returns to power during the US-Mexican War.

And so it goes...

By the way there are no Indian casinos in Texas. Like everyone else they have to play the Texas lotto.

[KG_SSpoom]

I must say that I think if the British navy desired they could have broken the blockade at will. The will/desire is the deciding factor, and I agree that slavery was a Huge factor blocking the recognition of the southern states by major european powers. But if the need for cotton ever was bad enough the
revulsion of slavery might have been overlooked for the sake of commerce. Cotton Imported from the colonies when it was withheld in the period before the American Revolution put a serious financial strain on England and actually led to the repeal of some of the taxes that cause it.

[KG_Jag]

Originally Posted by KG_Kharkov

Other: The Death of Stonewall Jackson at Chancellorsville.

In brief, Jackson dies at Chancellorsville and his Corps is divided amongst 3 commanders, none of whom have the same elan or initiative that Jackson did. Had Jackson been in command of his entire Corps at Gettysburg, I think it is very likely that Day 2 at Gettysburg turns out much differently. The Union flank is likely not secured on the Round Tops, and Lee has a strong chance of rolling the open Union line. If so, the Union is likely defeated or leaves the field in retreat towards D.C.

Political pressures lead the North potentially to sue for peace as Britain intervenes in the war. The U.S. is divided into two countries, neither of which ever becomes a superpower and world events change forever as U.S. intervention in WW1 is highly unlikely.

The Union won the war in west! Vicksburg still falls (the South is still cut into two pieces), Grant will still be called to command the Army of the Potomac (and maybe even quicker), and unless Lincoln loses the election and the Union quits, they still win.

[KG_Kharkov]

I don't think Grant (and Sherman) ever get the opportunity to exploit their victory at Vicksburg if Lee wins at Gettysburg. As Sspoom says, the mere fact of British recognition would have been a huge political blow to a very fragile Lincoln administration.

[KG_Jag]

I seriously doubt that another Southern victory in the east in 1863 causes a change in the British position. By that time they appear to be very set in their position. As stated before, the biggest reason for that is the slavery issue.

[KG_SSpoom]

Some Historians (not the majority Im sure) seem to think that another major victory by the south could have achieved European recognition, not Intervention as Intervention never really seemed to be on the table.
With the elections coming up shortly a serious defeat of the "Main"
federal army so close to the capital could have had a landslide effect, possibly causing Lincoln to lose to Maclellan who had tossed about (not sure how seriously) the idea of a armistice. In nearly all scenarios in this time period an armistice equals a victory for the confederacy, we must remember that on the east coast the southerners were kicking some serious ass, winning battles that they had no business winning. Even afterward Grant pushed his army to the point of failure and only won by sheer weight of numbers not by skill. Any recognition by European powers could have made the losses that it took Grants army to subdue Lee unacceptable to a wavering Northern public.

[KG_Soldier]

You're all wrong. Britian's shabby performance in the Crimean War 1853-56 caused them to balk at suporting the South and risking another defeat. If y'all think the racist British asses cared about the blacks, your fooling y'allselves! That was just their lying (as usual) asses making an excuse. Thus, more Southern victories could have changed their minds.

[KG_Panzerschreck]

Back to the blockade. I will agree that if Britian got very serious and focused on tearing a hole in the blockade they could do it. But the question is, would they risk denuding their fleet around England and other critical arenas for such an adventure and risk an attack by the French or some other potential foe for a semi-risky political adventure?

[KG_Jag]

Point #1: cutting the South in half was the victory. The South was never the same after that.

Point #2: Grant understood that the South could not win a war of attrition. Further in light to the level of causalities each side had born by 1864, it appears unrealistic to expect that either was truly willing to cut and run. Remember the election was in November of 1864 and if memory serves the swearing in of the President still occurred in March--of 1865.

Point #3: Without taking anything away from Lee and Jackson, most of the war they were fighting defensive battles, which was a much easier task than attacking. In fact the two times the Army of Northern Virginia took to the offensive, the results were not good--Antietam and Gettysburg.

Point #4: Ironclads--the Union had them, the Brits did not. Further most early Ironclads were not suited for cross Atlantic travel. They had very little free-board.

Point #5: cost benefit analysis--it simply wasn't worth the Brit's while to become involved in the US Civil War.