Why the Confederacy Lost

[cash]

I read that in the Time Life book of 1964 that dealt quite a bit with the blockade. Something like 50% of American ship owners re registered their ships. I suppose if the raiders where not sunk it would of gotten to close to 100%. I am somewhat surprised the USN did not have convoys but I will defer to Mr. Jenkins on that one.
Leftyhunter

The US merchant fleet still hasn't recovered from the Civil War.

 

[leftyhunter]

The US merchant fleet still hasn't recovered from the Civil War.

I would think that has more to do with post WW 2 political and economic factors. I would make a small wager that within 2o years after the CW all the ships sunk by the CSN had been replaced.
Leftyhunter

 

[damYankee]

Yes governments do have a right to enforce the law, with force if necessary. However, the Confederacy itself had never used force prior to Ft. Sumter. All previous seizures had been executed by the state governments' militias or 'private citizens.' In most cases they merely occupied facilities which had been abandoned by federal troops and civilians. Fort Sumter would have fallen the same way, had Davis waited 24 hours for Anderson to surrender the fort voluntarily. A storm prevented the rescue, resupply ships from arriving before that time had passed.

I guess firing cannons at the Star of the West in January of '61 was just a friendly way to say "HI".

 

[cash]

I would think that has more to do with post WW 2 political and economic factors. I would make a small wager that within 2o years after the CW all the ships sunk by the CSN had been replaced.
Leftyhunter

WW2 had its effect also, but the merchant fleet has never recovered to a comparable point to where it was before the Civil War, and that includes prior to WW2.

 

[damYankee]

The US merchant fleet still hasn't recovered from the Civil War.

You are joking, right?

 

[damYankee]

I would think that has more to do with post WW 2 political and economic factors. I would make a small wager that within 2o years after the CW all the ships sunk by the CSN had been replaced.
Leftyhunter

I would second that a raise it, most that were used during the war would have been obsolete with in 20 years, they were quickly built with substandard materials. Breakthroughs in metallurgy and propulsion was extraordinary during the closing years of the 1800s.

 

[leftyhunter]

WW2 had its effect also, but the merchant fleet has never recovered to a comparable point to where it was before the Civil War, and that includes prior to WW2.

Would that be due to the simple loss off ships to CSN raiders? What DY said makes a lot of sense that newer and better ship models came out and the 1860' era ships simply became obsolete.
Leftyhunter

 

[cash]

You are joking, right?

I'm not joking.

Check out this video.

 

[cash]

Would that be due to the simple loss off ships to CSN raiders? What DY said makes a lot of sense that newer and better ship models came out and the 1860' era ships simply became obsolete.
Leftyhunter

Due to losses and reflagging.

 

[leftyhunter]

SEPTEMBER 13, 2014 4:00 AM
Why the Confederacy Lost
Examining some issues of Civil War strategy
By Mackubin Thomas Owens

• Archive
• Latest
• RSS
• SendExpired Image Removed

Confederate soldiers captured after the Battle of Gettysburg, July 1862 (Library of Congress)

Print
Text Comments

10

Expired Image Removed​

Mackubin Thomas Owens

There is an old story, probably apocryphal, about a meeting of the Southern Historical Society in the years after the Civil War. The topic was Gettysburg — what mistakes, large or small, did the Confederates make that led to the Southern defeat? The debate was heated and furious. Tempers were at the boiling point. Finally, one of the participants turned to George Pickett of "Pickett's Charge" fame. "George," he said, "you were there. Why did we lose the battle?" to which Pickett replied, "I always thought the Yankees had something to do with it."

This anecdote reflects a historiographical debate about the Civil War in general. Was the cause of Confederate defeat external, or internal? Those who emphasize internal causes attribute the failure to breakdowns in Confederate leadership, both political and military, and Rebel errors on the battlefield. Those who stress external causes attribute this defeat to the military might of the Union, Lincoln's wartime leadership, and Union generalship.

There have always been those who emphasized internal factors in explaining why the Confederacy lost. Immediately after the war, many influential Confederates blamed southern defeat on the manifold failures of President Jefferson Davis. In the1920s, Frank Owsley blamed Confederate defeat on the doctrine of "state rights" — the alleged obstructive policies of governors that handicapped the ability of the Confederate government to mobilize men and resources for war. In 1960, David Donald offered a corollary to state rights, attributing the South's loss of the war to an "excess of democracy" — too much individualism, dissent, and criticism of the government.

More: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/387546/why-confederacy-lost-mackubin-thomas-owens

Maybe the CSA leadership simply deluded itself that one Johnny Reb can whip 10 yankees and that the boys from the North where yellow. I will add the caveat that Davis and Lee did not believe that drivel but to many folks from the South did because of what the fire eaters said.
Leftyhunter

 

[JeffBrooks]

I look at the military situation of the CW has an analogy of if your the ( whatever belt is just below the light heavy weight) champ of boxing and your going to fight the heavyweight champ of the world for the heavyweight title then there is no room for error. You need to knock him out in three rounds or less. You pray the heavy weight champ is out of shape and has been hitting the all you can eat buffets for the past month plus he smokes.
Leftyhunter

From a military point of view, you're absolutely correct. But wars are not won or lost by military factors alone. If they were, the Americans never would have beaten the British in the Revolutionary War, nor would the Vietnamese defeated the Americans in the 1970s or the Afghans defeated the Russians in the 1980s. Diplomatic and political factors play a role just as important, if not more so, as military ones.

The Confederacy had little chance, if any, to knock out the Union in three rounds or less (to use your analogy). But if it had persuaded the much stronger boxer (the British/French) to join in the fight, they would have won. Aside from that, if the Confederacy hadn't been knocked out by the tenth round (November 1864) the manager might have called the fight off and let the Confederacy win by default.

 

[damYankee]

The fact that the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 remained in place long after its usefulness had ended was responsible in part for the decline of the Merchant Marine, Through World

War II, the Act accomplished its mission of building a U.S. merchant fleet. At that time, the United States had 61 percent of the world's tonnage. But continuing to subsidize a large healthy merchant marine during a time of limited competition resulted in a dependent and noncompetitive industry. At the end of World War II, America had 16 million deadweight tons of shipping in the United States, and there were 2,480 vessels in the U.S. Merchant Fleet. But 20 years later, America was ranked not first any longer but eighth in the world. The world merchant fleet in 1975 consisted of 22,872 ships of 556,572,000 deadweight tons. The United States ranked eighth in terms of deadweight tonnage. Liberia was ranked number one in vessel registries (by number of ships) and was considered a country flag of convenience.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/merchant-marine.htm

 

[damYankee]

I'm not joking.

Check out this video.

I watched most of it, very interesting, it was a very successful raider, but I think it is a bit of a stretch to say our commercial fleet never recovered from it's activity. Also it would take more time then I can spend right now, but I have a feeling the author may be selling books.
He states that no other commercial raider has been as successful since the Virginia, however the US Submarines operating against Japan sunk much great tonnage in it's mission to shut down the Japanese freighters and oil tankers. He can get away with that claim on a technicality, that being the detail that Japans freighters and oilers not technically "commercial" ships.
But in pure tonnage?
http://www.answers.com/Q/Which_ship_sank_the_most_enemy_vessels_in_World_War_I

 

[leftyhunter]

From a military point of view, you're absolutely correct. But wars are not won or lost by military factors alone. If they were, the Americans never would have beaten the British in the Revolutionary War, nor would the Vietnamese defeated the Americans in the 1970s or the Afghans defeated the Russians in the 1980s. Diplomatic and political factors play a role just as important, if not more so, as military ones.

The Confederacy had little chance, if any, to knock out the Union in three rounds or less (to use your analogy). But if it had persuaded the much stronger boxer (the British/French) to join in the fight, they would have won. Aside from that, if the Confederacy hadn't been knocked out by the tenth round (November 1864) the manager might have called the fight off and let the Confederacy win by default.

True but North Vietnam was recognized by many nations by the mid 1950's. Ho Chi Minh knew the Soviet Block and the PRC would give him aid and in the case of the PRC troops to man anti-aircraft guns plus he had ports that where not blockaded until 1972 plus RR lines from the PRC. The Afgan resistance had logistical support from Pakistan and limited logistical support from Iran plus weapons from the US and the UK even Israel (via the US) and financial help from the oil rich govts on the Persian Gulf plus money from private millionaires.
Who was smarter Uncle Ho and the leadership of the Afgan resistance or Davis and other top figures of the CSA leadership? I will argue by far the former. Why? Simply because the former had their ducks lined up in a row. Did Davis et all meet prior the the firing on Ft Sumter with the ambassadors of France and the UK to ask what kind of support they would get once hostilities began plus give them enough time to communicate with Paris and London which would take over a month for a message to go back and forth unless there was transatlantic telegraph cables which I doubt?
True the Americans got help late in the game but they where fighting an enemy that had a small army and three thousand miles of ocean between them not an enemy right next door and also very much inside their own states.
I argue that the CSA grossly miscalculated that that any Western European nation would recognize them and the value of King Cotton. Not that many others have not argued the same since way back in the day.
Respectfully
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Due to losses and reflagging.

I think DY makes a good point about the US being number one in merchant ships by WW2. I have watched a little bit of the video on the CSS Al and will finish it its very interesting.
Leftyhunter

 

[1SGDan]

The South needed a rapid victory. An extended fight did not serve them well as they lacked the manpower resources to match the North. By 1863 when it was clear that the Union was going to fight to the bitter end they were finished.

 

[favedave]

Cash & Leftyhunter:

I don't disagree with your replies. However, prior to the firing on Ft Sumter "All previous seizures had been executed by the state governments' militias or 'private citizens.'" - The Confederacy, as Cash said didn't exist when the facility was occupied and the Star of the West was fired upon and the facilities were surrounded with cannon emplacements manned by the Carolina Militia. When Lincoln sent the resupply ships, he was certainly engaged in fulfilling the constitutional duty he outlined in his inaugural address. He was dealing directly with Governor Pickins of South Carolina. At that point, the new Confederate Government took over from South Carolina and chose to attack the United States. Lincoln then responded 'with all necessary force' to suppress the rebellion, per his constitutional duty as President.

 

[cash]

I watched most of it, very interesting, it was a very successful raider, but I think it is a bit of a stretch to say our commercial fleet never recovered from it's activity. Also it would take more time then I can spend right now, but I have a feeling the author may be selling books.
He states that no other commercial raider has been as successful since the Virginia, however the US Submarines operating against Japan sunk much great tonnage in it's mission to shut down the Japanese freighters and oil tankers. He can get away with that claim on a technicality, that being the detail that Japans freighters and oilers not technically "commercial" ships.
But in pure tonnage?
http://www.answers.com/Q/Which_ship_sank_the_most_enemy_vessels_in_World_War_I

He's talking about a single vessel. There were more than one US sub in WW2. Note that he's saying the merchant fleet never recovered to the level of predominance it had prior to the war.

 

[cash]

Cash & Leftyhunter:

I don't disagree with your replies. However, prior to the firing on Ft Sumter "All previous seizures had been executed by the state governments' militias or 'private citizens.'" - The Confederacy, as Cash said didn't exist when the facility was occupied and the Star of the West was fired upon and the facilities were surrounded with cannon emplacements manned by the Carolina Militia. When Lincoln sent the resupply ships, he was certainly engaged in fulfilling the constitutional duty he outlined in his inaugural address. He was dealing directly with Governor Pickins of South Carolina. At that point, the new Confederate Government took over from South Carolina and chose to attack the United States. Lincoln then responded 'with all necessary force' to suppress the rebellion, per his constitutional duty as President.

The confederacy was in charge in Charleston once they were established, so when they took over, and added more artillery, they were committing an act of violence against the United States. One doesn't actually have to shoot to commit an act of violence.

 

[damYankee]

He's talking about a single vessel. There were more than one US sub in WW2. Note that he's saying the merchant fleet never recovered to the level of predominance it had prior to the war.

I can post the top ten US sub commanders and their total tonnage, but it's like comparing apple to grapes. The USS Virginia did not have to deal with fast destroyers or air cover or radar, or radio communication.
Again the author was careful to restrict his claim to commercial ships. As the US Sub force and the German U-boats were
targeting Merchant Marines they were not technically commercial ships. Of course on the other side of that, there is much greater risk involved in attacking a fleet of Merchant Marines escorted by DD's and DE's and Cruisers and operating under CAPs (Combat Air Patrols).
But the claim that really goes over the top is to say the US has never recovered from the loss..... That is 100% books salesmanship. During WWII we were building transports or liberty ships faster then the enemy could sink them,.