Confederate mentality prior to the war?

[OpnCoronet]

It was based on the myth that the south was originally settled by the ancestors of warrior races(celtic v. saxon's, etc.,) and through the years the racial blood stock of the warrior was less diluted(thus stronger) in the south. The southy took to arms more naturally than those of lesser(or diluted) martial bloodlines.(mechanics and mudsills)

 

[larry_cockerham]

It was, wasn't it? Never did figure out why the southern boys figured they could whip any 10 northern boys.

That's the kind of thing we always said in high school. They were effete and sissy-boys over there. But they weren't. We got our butts handed back by the sissy-boys on more than one occasion.

Some tall skinny hillbilly boys from what was then a high school on the Virginia-North Carolina state line used to invite us 'up' to play baseball in the summers. We had a superiority complex because we lived nearer "town" and some of us even had cars, or at least parents who did. They routinely kicked our butts. Someone had taught them hand-eye coordination very well. It ain't the bat, it's the swing that counts.

 

[Nathanb1]

Most of what I've read above is essentially correct. I think we could still whip a few yanks as long as weight classes were strictly adhered to. "The South didn't lose the war, we just ran out of bullets." I'd vote for young men who had never seen war who were just very confident in their rural lifestyle as stated by others previously. After all, their grandfathers had whipped Ferguson at Kings Mountain handily. No reason they couldn't do the same with a yankee army, no better trained than they.... Miscalulation of the 19th century!

And don't forget all those boys with Old Hickory at New Orleans--or joining up with Sam Houston to put the whip on Santa Anna at San Jacinto--or even a large number of Southern boys who went off to the Mexican War. I'm sure the large number of militia groups and military schools in the South didn't hurt their unfortunate overabundance of hubris.

 

[BillO]

There's an old joke, Abe Lincoln asked Gen. Scott how come he could march into Mexico City but seemed to be having so much trouble marching into Richmond. Scott replied that the same men that took him to Mexico was keeping him out of Richmond.

 

[O'Bruadair]

Why did most Confederates believe that man for man they were better than Union troops?"

Well that one is pretty simple, because they were (at least in general) Partly because of their Scots Irish and Scots and Irish blood (with a good measure of Creek and Cherokee thrown in) . Partly because their culture generally revered the military and martial attributes (still does) Partly because the vast majority were rural. Partly because of their leisure oriented culture (which allowed for a great deal of horse racing, shooting, hunting and yes fighting) Partly because many of them were only one generation removed from the frontier (and many not at all). Remember too that in general, northerners were either fighting for an abstract principle (the union) or for money while Southerners were fighting for their homes. All of these cultural and physical aspects added up to one thing a natural born soldier (still does in many ways. Modern Southerners have been called America's "warrior class".)

All this is not to say there were no good soldiers and good fighters in the federal army. There certainly were. There were of course many Southerners and many more "1st generation northerners" (even ole abe could be classed as that) in the federal army. There were also at least 200,000 Irish (and remember Sam Watkins said if a Tennessean and an Irishman got in a fist fight the Irishman always won) Another Southerner made the statement that the only reason the north won was that they had more Irish! Also states like Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and Kansas were no more removed from the frontier than Texas and Arkansas. You had to be a fighter just to live there.

Nevertheless, When all things are considered Waylon Jennings was right when he said

"There never was no yankees that could beat us force to force"

 

[Nathanb1]

Oh brother! Incoming!

 

[proud texan]

There's an old joke, Abe Lincoln asked Gen. Scott how come he could march into Mexico City but seemed to be having so much trouble marching into Richmond. Scott replied that the same men that took him to Mexico was keeping him out of Richmond.

Not a Joke...
"Abraham Lincoln once asked General (Winfield) Scott the question: "Why is it that you were once able to take the City of Mexico in three months with five thousand men, and we have been unable to take Richmond with one hundred thousand men?
"I will tell you," said General Scott. "The men who took us into the City of Mexico are the same men who are keeping us out of Richmond." ~ (Confederate Veteran Magazine, September 1913, page 471)

In an article which appeared first in the Century Magazine and afterwards in the third volume of "Battles and Leaders of the Civil War," Union General Buell said: "It required a naval fleet and 15,000 troops to advance against a weak fort, manned by less than 100 men, at Fort Henry; 35,000, with naval cooperation, to overcome 12,000 at Donelson; 60,000 to secure a victory over 40,000 at Pittsburg Landing (Shiloh); 120,000 to enforce the retreat of 65,000 intrenched, after a month's fighting and maneuvering at Corinth; 100,000 repelled by 80,000 in the first Peninsular campaign against Richmond; 70,000, with a powerful naval force, to inspire the campaign which lasted nine months, against 40,000 at Vicksburg; 90,000 to barely withstand the assault of 70,000 at Gettysburg; 115,000 sustaining a frightful repulse from 60,000 at Fredericksburg: 100,000 attacked and defeated by 50,000 at Chancellorsville; 85,000 held in check two days by 40,000 at Antietam; 43,000 retaining the field uncertainly against 38,000 at Stone River (Murfreesboro); 70,000 defeated at Chickamauga, and beleaguered by 70,000 at Chattanooga; 80,000 merely to break the investing line of 45,000 at Chattanooga, and 100,000 to press back 50,000 increased at last to 70,000 from Chattanooga to Atlanta, a distance of 120 miles, and then let go an operation which is commemorated at festive reunions by the standing toast of "One hundred days under fire;" 50,000 to defeat the investing line of 30,000 at Nashville; and, finally, 120,000 to overcome 60,000 with exhaustion after a struggle of a year in Virginia

 

[proud texan]

Oh brother! Incoming!

I hear you brother. But broad statements; oooooohhhh! ....You better find something to back it up.... FAST!

 

[proud texan]

Interesting paper... http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-11142007-113721/unrestricted/pratt_thesis.pdf

 

[dvrmte]

Not a Joke...
"Abraham Lincoln once asked General (Winfield) Scott the question: "Why is it that you were once able to take the City of Mexico in three months with five thousand men, and we have been unable to take Richmond with one hundred thousand men?
"I will tell you," said General Scott. "The men who took us into the City of Mexico are the same men who are keeping us out of Richmond." ~ (Confederate Veteran Magazine, September 1913, page 471)

In an article which appeared first in the Century Magazine and afterwards in the third volume of "Battles and Leaders of the Civil War," Union General Buell said: "It required a naval fleet and 15,000 troops to advance against a weak fort, manned by less than 100 men, at Fort Henry; 35,000, with naval cooperation, to overcome 12,000 at Donelson; 60,000 to secure a victory over 40,000 at Pittsburg Landing (Shiloh); 120,000 to enforce the retreat of 65,000 intrenched, after a month's fighting and maneuvering at Corinth; 100,000 repelled by 80,000 in the first Peninsular campaign against Richmond; 70,000, with a powerful naval force, to inspire the campaign which lasted nine months, against 40,000 at Vicksburg; 90,000 to barely withstand the assault of 70,000 at Gettysburg; 115,000 sustaining a frightful repulse from 60,000 at Fredericksburg: 100,000 attacked and defeated by 50,000 at Chancellorsville; 85,000 held in check two days by 40,000 at Antietam; 43,000 retaining the field uncertainly against 38,000 at Stone River (Murfreesboro); 70,000 defeated at Chickamauga, and beleaguered by 70,000 at Chattanooga; 80,000 merely to break the investing line of 45,000 at Chattanooga, and 100,000 to press back 50,000 increased at last to 70,000 from Chattanooga to Atlanta, a distance of 120 miles, and then let go an operation which is commemorated at festive reunions by the standing toast of "One hundred days under fire;" 50,000 to defeat the investing line of 30,000 at Nashville; and, finally, 120,000 to overcome 60,000 with exhaustion after a struggle of a year in Virginia

You beat me to it. I couldn't remember who the quote was from .

Thanks,

dvrmte

 

[proud texan]

In an article which appeared first in the Century Magazine and afterwards in the third volume of "Battles and Leaders of the Civil War," Union General Buell said: "It required a naval fleet and 15,000 troops to advance against a weak fort, manned by less than 100 men, at Fort Henry; 35,000, with naval cooperation, to overcome 12,000 at Donelson; 60,000 to secure a victory over 40,000 at Pittsburg Landing (Shiloh); 120,000 to enforce the retreat of 65,000 intrenched, after a month's fighting and maneuvering at Corinth; 100,000 repelled by 80,000 in the first Peninsular campaign against Richmond; 70,000, with a powerful naval force, to inspire the campaign which lasted nine months, against 40,000 at Vicksburg; 90,000 to barely withstand the assault of 70,000 at Gettysburg; 115,000 sustaining a frightful repulse from 60,000 at Fredericksburg: 100,000 attacked and defeated by 50,000 at Chancellorsville; 85,000 held in check two days by 40,000 at Antietam; 43,000 retaining the field uncertainly against 38,000 at Stone River (Murfreesboro); 70,000 defeated at Chickamauga, and beleaguered by 70,000 at Chattanooga; 80,000 merely to break the investing line of 45,000 at Chattanooga, and 100,000 to press back 50,000 increased at last to 70,000 from Chattanooga to Atlanta, a distance of 120 miles, and then let go an operation which is commemorated at festive reunions by the standing toast of "One hundred days under fire;" 50,000 to defeat the investing line of 30,000 at Nashville; and, finally, 120,000 to overcome 60,000 with exhaustion after a struggle of a year in Virginia

You could add the Battle of Sabine Pass to this list...47 against 5 ships and 5000 men.

 

[ole]

I smell a fight coming. What say we just amble around it? I'm really not in the mood to go find the axe, but I have a good idea about where it is.

 

[dvrmte]

I smell a fight coming. What say we just amble around it? I'm really not in the mood to go find the axe, but I have a good idea about where it is.

My dad always told me to never let anyone throw the first punch if you see a fight coming on. You gotta take the initiative, keep them thinking of defense rather than offense.

The young bloods of the South; sons of planters, lawyers about towns, good billiard players and sportsmen, men who never did any work and never will. War suits them. They are splendid riders, first rate shots and utterly reckless. These men must all be killed or employed by us before we can hope for peace....Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman

 

[Talbot]

I'd rather this didn't turn into some pseudo ****ing contest - it does not make for decent and impartial history.

The fact that some soldiers were of Irish decent or were indeed Irish is totally inconsequential. I'd be laughed at by my lecturer if I started bringing up 'race' unless it was directly related to the mentality of the Confederate soldier and why he would see himself as superior to the US Army soldier in early 1861. Clearly this isn't the case as there were more Northern troops of Irish decent than Southern.

The whole Irish creating 'super soldiers' is entirely mythical from the reading I have done; it is all relative.

Old Hickory at New Orleans might be a valid argument for differentiating between 'Southern' and 'Northern' soldiers as it was the 'Northern' troops who made all those invasions of British North America (1812) and got soundly beaten by outnumbered British regulars and militia (and the British were the ones attacking!!!). But New Orleans was a defensive battle and Pakenham was entirely moronic. I dare say had those veteran Highlanders been able to have a proper stand up fight Jacksons hodge podge group of pirates, freed slaves and militia would have been made short work of.

Lots of good stuff though, thanks.

 

[proud texan]

I smell a fight coming. What say we just amble around it? I'm really not in the mood to go find the axe, but I have a good idea about where it is.

You said it! Cain't we all get along??

 

[Rob9641]

I got the popcorn in the microwave....

 

[dvrmte]

Proud Texan posted the opinion of Union General Buell and I posted an observation of General Sherman. We used completely unbiased sources.

Anyway, southerners have long since learned one of us can't whip seven yankees, three's more like it.

 

[elfdream]

Was it Irish heritage or being 'Scots-Irish' that gave some the advantage ? The Scots-Irish (some of whom were my ancestors) were known for brawling and basically being kicked out of every place they settled until they met up with Cherokee who found them rather amusing and let them stay.

Or at least that's how I learned it. I'm sure there were a lot of embellishments handed down through the years.

 

[larry_cockerham]

If I were making a decision about the Civil War, and thank God that never happened, my old pot belly would likely have worn a blue coat. If it was just a fight with a few yankees, my heels would have been and are firmly (at least in spirit..they do wobble a bit) entrenched in Dixie. As for me, there was much merit to the peace movement in the 60s, though a bit too much weed and Budweiser. Ole, ain't "amble" a Southern word? (I don't and never did do weed, but I have considerable affinity for the clydesdales and still plan to visit St. Louis one of these days. I was 30 miles away when Bama made me turn right.)

 

[larry_cockerham]

Was it Irish heritage or being 'Scots-Irish' that gave some the advantage ? The Scots-Irish (some of whom were my ancestors) were known for brawling and basically being kicked out of every place they settled until they met up with Cherokee who found them rather amusing and let them stay.

Or at least that's how I learned it. I'm sure there were a lot of embellishments handed down through the years.

You're getting close to the truth. The other half were Germans who just like a good fight.