Why the South Lost; 10 essays

[Peter1469]

Why the South Lost; 10 essays (http://www.historynet.com/why-the-south-lost-the-civil-war-cover-page-february-99-american-history-feature.htm)

This is only for those who want to read and absorb more than a sound bite. The knee jerk reactions will shine like a glow stick at night.

[Green Arrow]

Thanks for this! I'm gonna bookmark it and start reading on some of them when I get home. I'll take them one at a time and post my thoughts here.

[Mainecoons]

Very interesting read. I am persuaded by the arguments of their being outnumbered three to one, not having the industrial base and losing the gamble that Europe would intervene on their side.

I'm not persuaded by the arguments of superior generalship on the part of the north. It is easy to be a superior general when you have the overwhelming advantage in numbers and materiel.

[Peter1469]

Very interesting read. I am persuaded by the arguments of their being outnumbered three to one, not having the industrial base and losing the gamble that Europe would intervene on their side.

I'm not persuaded by the arguments of superior generalship on the part of the north. It is easy to be a superior general when you have the overwhelming advantage in numbers and materiel.

Union Generals prior to Grant are a counter-point.

Had Grant been in charge immediately after Gettysburg (i.e., don't change the battle), Lee's army would have been pursued and crushed.

[Green Arrow]

I agree with William C. Davis' point. Outgunned, out-manned, and out-supplied with no hope of foreign intervention, Lincoln and Grant's determination to win certainly decided the war. He fails to point out Sherman's genocidal march to the sea as a major deciding factor, however.

Robert Krick's point is correct. The Union had the benefit of an already existent and trained military. The South did not, and had to largely cobble its army together from regular citizens. The average citizen back then was more fit for war than the average citizen today, but they were still not as fit or better fit than the Union's trained military. There were exceptions, of course, such as Robert E. Lee, but those exceptions weren't enough to win the day.

Brian Pohanka's portion was just beautiful, so I'm just going to quote it and let it speak for itself:


The South certainly did not lose for any lack of idealism, or dedication to its cause or beliefs, or bravery and skill on the battlefield. In those virtues the Confederate soldier was unexcelled, and it's my belief that man-for-man there was no finer army in the history of America than the Army of Northern Virginia.

But of course the factors that enter into the South's ultimate defeat are those things that you hear time and time again, and with a great amount of validity: the North's industrial base; the North's manpower resources; the fact that foreign recognition was denied the Confederacy. In time these things would tell on the battlefield, certainly on the broader level. The North was able to bring its industry and its manpower to bear in such a way that eventually, through sheer numerical and material advantage, it gained and maintained the upper hand.


That's when you get into the whole truly tragic sense of the Lost Cause, because those men knew their cause was lost, they knew there was really no way they could possibly win, and yet they fought on with tremendous bravery and dedication. And that's, I think, one of the reasons why the Civil War was such a poignant and even heart-wrenching time. Whether or not you agree with the Confederacy or with the justness of its cause, there's no way that you can question the idealism and the courage, the bravery, the dedication, the devotion of its soldiers–that they believed what they were fighting for was right. Even while it was happening, men like Union officer Joshua Chamberlain–who did all that he could to defeat the Confederacy–could not help but admire the dedication of those soldiers.

Noah Andre Trudeau, James M. McPherson, Gary Gallagher, Richard McMurray, Mark Grimsley, Herman Hattaway, and Edwin C. Bearss, I agree with. Not really anything to add to them.

[Peter1469]

The re-election of Lincoln sealed the deal.... That meant that the north trusted their leader and still followed him.

I did know know about southern politics and Davies refusal to even consider a deal and the lack of political structures to force the issue.

[Mister D]

I agree with William C. Davis' point. Outgunned, out-manned, and out-supplied with no hope of foreign intervention, Lincoln and Grant's determination to win certainly decided the war. He fails to point out Sherman's genocidal march to the sea as a major deciding factor, however.

Robert Krick's point is correct. The Union had the benefit of an already existent and trained military. The South did not, and had to largely cobble its army together from regular citizens. The average citizen back then was more fit for war than the average citizen today, but they were still not as fit or better fit than the Union's trained military. There were exceptions, of course, such as Robert E. Lee, but those exceptions weren't enough to win the day.

Brian Pohanka's portion was just beautiful, so I'm just going to quote it and let it speak for itself:



Noah Andre Trudeau, James M. McPherson, Gary Gallagher, Richard McMurray, Mark Grimsley, Herman Hattaway, and Edwin C. Bearss, I agree with. Not really anything to add to them.

The bold covers it. The Confederacy never really stood a chance without foreign intervention. Perhaps the most important effect of the Emancipation Proclamation was to make that intervention highly unlikely.

[Mister D]

To be sure, the US Regular Army in 1861 was tiny.

[Max Rockatansky]

Very interesting read. I am persuaded by the arguments of their being outnumbered three to one, not having the industrial base and losing the gamble that Europe would intervene on their side.

I'm not persuaded by the arguments of superior generalship on the part of the north. It is easy to be a superior general when you have the overwhelming advantage in numbers and materiel.Agreed on all points. The South had the superior leadership. For the most part, they also started out with the most motivated soldiers.

In this way, the Civil War reminds me of this old story:

A Zen master was out for a walk with one of his students when they noticed a fox chasing a rabbit.

“According to an ancient saying the rabbit will escape,” said the master.


“Not so,” replied the student, “the fox is faster.”


“Never-the less, the rabbit will elude the fox,” the master stated.


“How can you be so certain?” asked the student.


“The fox is running for its’ dinner. The rabbit is running for its’ life.”The South was fighting for its life, but unlike the story, the Northern "fox" had a solid industrial base to impose its will upon Southerners.

[Green Arrow]

The bold covers it. The Confederacy never really stood a chance without foreign intervention. Perhaps the most important effect of the Emancipation Proclamation was to make that intervention highly unlikely.

Which is precisely why Lincoln signed it.

[Max Rockatansky]

The Emancipation Proclamation was issued 1JAN 1863, a few months after the bloodiest day in US history; the Battle of Antietam.

The war still had a year and four months to go.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/emancipation_proclamation/

Despite this expansive wording, the Emancipation Proclamation was limited in many ways. It applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, leaving slavery untouched in the loyal border states. It also expressly exempted parts of the Confederacy that had already come under Northern control. Most important, the freedom it promised depended upon Union military victory.

.....From the first days of the Civil War, slaves had acted to secure their own liberty. The Emancipation Proclamation confirmed their insistence that the war for the Union must become a war for freedom. It added moral force to the Union cause and strengthened the Union both militarily and politically. As a milestone along the road to slavery's final destruction, the Emancipation Proclamation has assumed a place among the great documents of human freedom.

The North attacked and invaded the South in order, as President Lincoln wrote, to preserve the Union. By switching horses in mid-fight, as the link above notes, he was trying to give the North a moral force to continue the aggression against the South. The Union loses had been great and the Battle of Antietam had caused many Northerners if this aggressive attack on the South was worth the effort. Giving them a moral cause emboldened them to continue the fight.

[Perianne]

I don't really care now why the south lost. I do know I hate Lincoln because of it.

[Peter1469]

I agree with William C. Davis' point. Outgunned, out-manned, and out-supplied with no hope of foreign intervention, Lincoln and Grant's determination to win certainly decided the war. He fails to point out Sherman's genocidal march to the sea as a major deciding factor, however.

Robert Krick's point is correct. The Union had the benefit of an already existent and trained military. The South did not, and had to largely cobble its army together from regular citizens. The average citizen back then was more fit for war than the average citizen today, but they were still not as fit or better fit than the Union's trained military. There were exceptions, of course, such as Robert E. Lee, but those exceptions weren't enough to win the day.

Brian Pohanka's portion was just beautiful, so I'm just going to quote it and let it speak for itself:



Noah Andre Trudeau, James M. McPherson, Gary Gallagher, Richard McMurray, Mark Grimsley, Herman Hattaway, and Edwin C. Bearss, I agree with. Not really anything to add to them.

The sad thing is that the then modern infantry tactics were decades out of date. And rifled barrels (cannon and personal arms) made it much worse. I think that @Mr D would disagree with me in general.

[Mister D]

The sad thing is that the then modern infantry tactics were decades out of date. And rifled barrels (cannon and personal arms) made it much worse. I think that @Mr D would disagree with me in general.

I would disagree somewhat, I guess. There hadn't yet been a major war using the new weapons which is why European observers flocked to the US. It's also why Sherman's Army of the Tennessee was possibly the most effective military force in the world in 1864.

[Peter1469]

I would disagree somewhat, I guess. There hadn't yet been a major war using the new weapons which is why European observers flocked to the US. It's also why Sherman's Army of the Tennessee was possibly the most effective military force in the world in 1864.

Yes, I am critical of commanding officers that allow advances in military affairs go unnoticed while considering effective offensive and defensive tactics. :smiley: