The Never-Ending Question

[1SGDan]

and soldiers that fought harder.

????? You have some proof of this?
Grandiose statements are easily made but difficult to support.

 

[cash]

Again, what they accomplished with what they were up against, yes, they had better military commanders and soldiers that fought harder.

The confederacy lost territory nearly every day of the war. They only had one officer who was good enough to successfully command an army.

Take R. E. Lee out of the equation and the confederacy loses to George B. McClellan in 1862. That's not better military commanders and soldiers that fought harder. That's one single commander who was better than his opponent, until his opponent was the best general of the war, Ulysses S. Grant.

 

[IcarusPhoenix]

Again, what they accomplished with what they were up against, yes, they had better military commanders and soldiers that fought harder.

I do so love when the response to a statement being categorically debunked is an almost-verbatimrepetition of the statement, as if insistence was the same as fact.

I strongly recommend looking up the term confirmation bias.

 

[thomas aagaard]

I believe he took more losses under his command than all the commanders before him that went against Lee.

And how many losses did he inflict on the enemy ;-)

And Lee actually lost more men under his command then Grant did. (if we count the AoP as his command during the time he was East... even if Meade was actually in command)

 

[fwb35]

I guess Jackson and Stuart stunk, Forrest also was no good lol. The first couple of years the Confederate Cavalry ran circles around the yankees, literally, Stuart's ride...... At second Manassas the Confederates ran out of ammunition but did not retreat, they threw rocks....

 

[fwb35]

And how many losses did he inflict on the enemy ;-)

And Lee actually lost more men under his command then Grant did. (if we count the AoP as his command during the time he was East... even if Meade was actually in command)

Ok, so Lee was in command how long compared to Grant, seriously? And he was named the Butcher why?

 

[thomas aagaard]

Iam sure that is information that you would be able to find yourself.

But Grant was placed in command of District of Cairo on 1st September 61... and was commanding troops in combat a few month later... and until the end of the war... So he was in command of an army for longer then Lee was.

 

[IcarusPhoenix]

The great advantage to thinking in simplistic absolutes is that you can ignore all the Floyds, Pillows, Lorings, and Braggs of the war in favor of the Jacksons, Stuarts, and Forrests. For that matter, you can ignore those men's errors in favor of only their successes, to the point where even their failures become successes.

Indeed, one can even pretend that Lee's total of 37 months of field command is longer than Grant's 45, and believe that being defeated in only eleven months by one general after holding his own for twenty-four months against five others somehow makes him more talented than the one who not only forced his surrender, but the surrender of two full armies before ever facing him.

 

[rpkennedy]

I guess Jackson and Stuart stunk, Forrest also was no good lol. The first couple of years the Confederate Cavalry ran circles around the yankees, literally, Stuart's ride...... At second Manassas the Confederates ran out of ammunition but did not retreat, they threw rocks....

Jackson is overrated and Stuart was very good against terrible opponents.

Forrest was a good raider but was not very good at the other missions of the cavalry (reconnaissance, for example).

R

 

[Jersey Blue]

The South lost due to several reasons...........

The North's resources.........Manpower, industrial might, Naval superiority, Strategy............

The South.........Bickering in the government, bickering between states, bickering between officials and military leaders, bad strategy at times, lack of Manpower, lack of industrial might..........


Respectfully,

William

The North had all of the bickering and political ineptness and cut throat moves for power that the South had. The media continually wrote articles of slander. Military leaders also had massive problems. Heck, even Grant was grumbled upon until the end of the war.
I will agree with the Union points, but so many only list the South's disadvantage as those the North clearly had if not worse.
There is more to the answer for the Southern cause and its defeat IMO.
I would like to see the deeper thoughts into this.

 

[Elennsar]

Grant being grumbled on, and Bragg's subordinates (the most notorious example of command dysfunction in the Confederacy) refusing to obey his orders, are not comparable situations. One is definitely less serious.

 

[rhettbutler1865]

This theory is well-developed in Lost Victories - The Military Genius of Stonewall Jackson by Bevin Alexander:

Thanks James, you beat me to it--in fact, I was reaching for it as you posted! Weird

 

[W. Richardson]

This here is a large part of the reason I keep saying that as a country, the Confederacy was doomed no matter what. Even if they had won the war, several of the various states would likely have been at war with each other in short order.

There is little evidence that Confederate military leaders were superior in talent overall, particularly outside of the eastern theater. They merely did a better job of allocating the talent they had at the beginning of the war, whereas their Union counterparts had to rise on combat merit over time and in competition with both talented and untalented amateurs.

But shouldn't the Union army been better prepared ? After all the Union had a standing regular (albeit not a large one) army and the Confederacy had to organize, train, and equip one. I feel at the start of the war the Confederacy did have an advantage as to military leadership.

Respectfully,

William

 

[hanna260]

Ok, so Lee was in command how long compared to Grant, seriously? And he was named the Butcher why?

I guess Jackson and Stuart stunk, Forrest also was no good lol. The first couple of years the Confederate Cavalry ran circles around the yankees, literally, Stuart's ride...... At second Manassas the Confederates ran out of ammunition but did not retreat, they threw rocks....

I think this has already been taken care of and you certainly have a right to your opinion but I take umbrage to this. Certainly no one is saying that Jackson, Forrest, Stuart, or Lee stunk. What they are saying is that on average the South had some terrible leaders of its own, and also not many army commanders who could handle an entire army- so it's debatable about who had the better leaders.

What they're also (partially) saying and here's the reason why I jumped into this is that Union leaders (and perhaps superior leadership in some areas) deserve credit for the reason why the Confederacy lost/Union won.

I have a big issue with the mindset of the quotes above which is my issue and not your own but I feel the need to address it- I would not mind at all praising of Lee, Stuart, Jackson, or Forrest (all of whom I think by the way were great commanders) if a not very-but-still-too large percentage of it didn't seem to be wrapped up in denigrating Grant, Sherman, Thomas, or Meade.

 

[IcarusPhoenix]

But shouldn't the Union army been better prepared ? After all the Union had a standing regular (albeit not a large one) army and the Confederacy had to organize, train, and equip one. I feel at the start of the war the Confederacy did have an advantage as to military leadership.

Respectfully,

William

Better prepared how, though? When the war officially started, the Confederacy already had tens of thousands of men under arms, while most of the 16,000 man Union Army was still west of the Mississippi. Thanks to Buchanan's Secretary of War shifting weapons to southern armories and the early insurrectionists taking advantage of this by taking those armories over, the two sides started with similar quantities and qualities of weapons to distribute to new troops. The Union had a greater ability to mobilize, yes, but as I think I've shown pretty effectively here, the Union Army had a huge advantage in talented military leadership.

Again, I don't think the Confederacy's leaders where inherently superior; I think the confederacy did a better job of allocating their talent to the top of the chain-of-command earlier on than the Union did. The generals who won the war for the Union had exactly the same amount of training and experience as their Confederate counter-parts, but had to work their way up to the level where they were allowed to perform. Davis largely saw to it that he had such men in those positions early on.

Mind you, this all becomes meaningless when discussing anything but the eastern theater; outside of the Army of Northern Virginia, the quality of Confederate leadership was, at best, highly varied.

 

[jgoodguy]

Ok, so Lee was in command how long compared to Grant, seriously? And he was named the Butcher why?

P0litics in the newspapers.

 

[nitrofd]

The North had all of the bickering and political ineptness and cut throat moves for power that the South had. The media continually wrote articles of slander. Military leaders also had massive problems. Heck, even Grant was grumbled upon until the end of the war.
I will agree with the Union points, but so many only list the South's disadvantage as those the North clearly had if not worse.
There is more to the answer for the Southern cause and its defeat IMO.
I would like to see the deeper thoughts into this.

One reason the south lost was Jefferson Davis relationship with his generals.in the east E everything worked right and some may think that Davis was a genius in that theater of the war.when you move to the western theater the whole situation changes .David's genius for running the war did not exist and he interfered way too much.To understand more of this theory I would recommend reading Steven E. Woodworth ' s book "Jefferson Davis and his Generals" , The Failure of Command in the West.

 

[jgoodguy]

I think this has already been taken care of and you certainly have a right to your opinion but I take umbrage to this. Certainly no one is saying that Jackson, Forrest, Stuart, or Lee stunk. What they are saying is that on average the South had some terrible leaders of its own, and also not many army commanders who could handle an entire army- so it's debatable about who had the better leaders.

What they're also (partially) saying and here's the reason why I jumped into this is that Union leaders (and perhaps superior leadership in some areas) deserve credit for the reason why the Confederacy lost/Union won.

I have a big issue with the mindset of the quotes above which is my issue and not your own but I feel the need to address it- I would not mind at all praising of Lee, Stuart, Jackson, or Forrest (all of whom I think by the way were great commanders) if a not very-but-still-too large percentage of it didn't seem to be wrapped up in denigrating Grant, Sherman, Thomas, or Meade.

Along those lines.
No Union commander lost a state to the CSA on an unforced error.

The CSA General Poke lost Kentucky.

On September 4, 1861, Confederate Major General Leonidas Polk violated the Commonwealth's neutrality by ordering Brigadier General Gideon Johnson Pillow to occupy Columbus.[24]
...
n response to the Confederate invasion, Union Brigadier General Ulysses S. Grant left Cairo, Illinois and entered Paducah, Kentucky on September 6, which gave the Union control of the northern end of the New Orleans and Ohio Railroad[26] and the mouth of the Tennessee River. Governor Magoffin denounced both sides for violating the Commonwealth's neutrality, calling for both sides to withdraw.[29] However, on September 7, 1861, the General Assembly passed a resolution ordering the withdrawal of only Confederate forces.[29] Magoffin vetoed the resolution, but both houses overrode the veto, and Magoffin issued the proclamation.[30] The General Assembly ordered the flag of the United States to be raised over the state capitol in Frankfort, declaring its allegiance with the Union.

 

[hanna260]

No Union commander lost a state to the CSA on an unforced error.

The CSA General Poke lost Kentucky.

General Poke? Is he related to General Stick?

Yep. You're very right. The North did not have a monopoly on terrible leaders. For every Banks, Butler, and Pope, you had a Polk, Pillow, and Floyd.

 

[nitrofd]

Along those lines.
No Union commander lost a state to the CSA on an unforced error.

The CSA General Poke lost Kentucky.

General poke is a cold fish dish served in hawaii.