Did the Southern men fight better than the Northern men?

i would assume after enduring battle after battle with the same men, you'd begin to trust and rely on one another. This trust may have given a certain regiment an advantage over one that was newly formed with men who didn't know each other.

Yes, this makes sense, probably even more at the company level if the regiment is large. If you have good practices and mutual support within the unit, that could be passed on to newer members when they join. This tends to hold true within all kinds of working groups, in civilian life also. On the other hand, it can work the other way: A toxic culture within a group can take hold and be passed on to new members. Bad leadership can result in dysfunction as well.

Roy B.
 
@A. Roy In your post #50 above on why I thought that would make the Confederate appear the better soldier.

To answer, and it's just an opinion, older regiments would have discipline, perhaps a reputation, (more important than modern people realize, in my opinion), experienced officers and nco's, better drilled, (also more important than generally realized today, again in my opinion), equalling better morale and cohesion, which would translate into better battle field performance generally.

Integrating new recruits into veteran regiments, would eliminate entire regiments going into battle with none of above in their favor.

It is my impression that this was not the practise in the Confederate army, at least in the Army of Northern Virginia, and that General Grant once expressed such an opinion on the negative aspects of this practise in the Union forces.

John
 
The counter intuitive truth is that city boys were far tougher than farm boys. They had already had the many diseases that decimated the ranks of the “naive population” of countrymen.

My opinion of this topic is informed by the experience of a good friend. Fresh from Marine boot camp & individual training, he arrived at his first duty station. There was an Air Force facility that shared the airfield. He was absolutely certain that one Marine was tougher than any ten AF personnel. Everybody said it was true.

He & nine friends discovered 3 truths when they provoked a fight with three AF personnel at a bar. 1st, When he regained consciousness, he discovered that if you are hit hard enough, your feet ball up from the shock & you can leave your shoes without untying the laces. 2nd, Recon is essential. The 3 AF men they picked a fight with were PJ’s, Parachute Rescue Jumpers, some of the elite of the elite of the US armed services. 3rd, Don’t believe what everybody tells you... ten Marines were dead meat v 3 of the wrong kind of AF personal.
 
I think it came from the same school of thought expressed by the actor Dustin Hoffman in the Movie " Meet the Fookers" who spoke about having trophies made for his son ( played by Ben Stiller) celebrating fifth place wins at summer camp competitions.
Unfortunately war doesn't give participation trophies. War is as Von Clawdwitz wrote " politics by other means". Either the Confedracy achieved it's politcal goals or it didn't. The Lost Cause and it's present day advocates are more in the Hoffman school of thought that the Confedracy should get participation trophies.
Leftyhunter
This war gave a lot of participation trophies.
 
Speculation here: Other than disease resistance, isn't a farm boy the ideal infantry grunt? Used to rough conditions and hard labor, and more likely to be experienced with firearms.

If so, the South had an advantage that most Southern enlisted men were from such families whereas the North was much more varied. You had lots of Midwestern farm boys but lots of cityslickers in the East (NYC, Boston, Philly).
Highly unlikely. If a young man in a crowded duty can make it to adulthood in a crowded city more likely then not can handle diseases better then a young man from a rural area.
City dwellers also had to do hard labor. Unlikely a study would show rural men are in any way superior soldiers to urban men.
Leftyhunter
 
There is an interesting book I have at home from an officer that was verified by a historian that Humphreys was a lousy drunk. When I get home I can if you want give you the title. There were plenty of good Union officers in the West and of course some bad ones. It certainly wasn't like the Confedracy had better officers then the Union.
Leftyhunter

If that was true (and I highly doubt it) it certainly didn't affect Humphrey's career prior to the CW, as a military officer during the CW and in his post war years. He graduated from the USMA at West Point 13th out of a graduating class of 33. He fought in the Seminole War and was posted in garrison duty afterwards. He resigned his commission and became a civil engineer for the government. Back in the army a couple of years later as a Topographical engineer, working on bridges and harbors and doing coastal and railroad surveys. "His Report upon the Physics and Hydraulics of the Mississippi River (1861), co-authored with Henry L. Abbot (another very successful Topographical Engineer), formed the basis for subsequent flood control and navigation improvement." see; Mark M. Boatner, III; CW Dictionary

During the period Palfrey writes his book The Antietam and Fredericksburg Campaign Humphrey's commanded the 3rd Div. of the V Corp of the AOP. When he took over the newly created 3rd division (7 of 8 regiments were newbies) about half had been equipped with lousy Belgian rifles that did not work properly. He insisted his division be properly equipped with working rifles and would not leave to join V Corp until the division was so equipped. It was. His 3rd division then made a three day march from Washington D. C. to Frederick, MD. After resting for some 12 hours he continued the march to the battlefield at Antietam, 23 miles in less than 12 hours marching mostly at night. His division reached the field on the morning of the 18th and was placed in reserve.

At Fredericksburg Humphrey's 3rd division made the last charge with bayonets only upon Marye's Heights. It is said that the division course was upset by the wounded and those who were seeking cover from previous units that had valiantly tried, but were viciously cut down, storming Marye's Heights. This gallant effort was applauded by Palfrey as the model that had the best chance of breaching the defenses at Marye's Heights and the one that should have been adopted from the start.

At Chancellorsville Humphrey's led the 3rd division and briefly commanded the V Corp. At Gettysburg Humphrey commanded the 2nd Div. III Corp and replaced Butterfield as AOP CoS. As CoS to Meade he continued in this position until he replace Hancock as II Corp commander during the early stages of the Petersburg Campaign. He was considered as Warren's replacement of the command of the V Corp in May, 1864 but Warren won a reprieve at Spotsylvania.

After the war Humphrey was named Chief of Engineers with the rank of BG in 1866. After retiring from the military he became a who's who in the worlds Science and Arts field. He was a member of several philosophical and Science societies and academies and was made an "honorary member of scientific and philosophical societies in Austria, France and Italy. Of his war experiences he wrote From Gettysburg to the Rapidan (1883) and The Virginia Campaign of 1864 and 1865 (1885). The latter is a standard work." ibid.

This post should serve as a reminder that rumors of the kind as put forward by the distinguished member of this forum do not serve any purpose other than to undeservedly smear the reputation of an accomplished individual. This type of smear has been one that Grant had to put up with even though he was actually a drunk for a very sad but small part of his life. It sure as heck didn't seem to affect his performance as a soldier and statesman.
 
If that was true (and I highly doubt it) it certainly didn't affect Humphrey's career prior to the CW, as a military officer during the CW and in his post war years. He graduated from the USMA at West Point 13th out of a graduating class of 33. He fought in the Seminole War and was posted in garrison duty afterwards. He resigned his commission and became a civil engineer for the government. Back in the army a couple of years later as a Topographical engineer, working on bridges and harbors and doing coastal and railroad surveys. "His Report upon the Physics and Hydraulics of the Mississippi River (1861), co-authored with Henry L. Abbot (another very successful Topographical Engineer), formed the basis for subsequent flood control and navigation improvement." see; Mark M. Boatner, III; CW Dictionary

During the period Palfrey writes his book The Antietam and Fredericksburg Campaign Humphrey's commanded the 3rd Div. of the V Corp of the AOP. When he took over the newly created 3rd division (7 of 8 regiments were newbies) about half had been equipped with lousy Belgian rifles that did not work properly. He insisted his division be properly equipped with working rifles and would not leave to join V Corp until the division was so equipped. It was. His 3rd division then made a three day march from Washington D. C. to Frederick, MD. After resting for some 12 hours he continued the march to the battlefield at Antietam, 23 miles in less than 12 hours marching mostly at night. His division reached the field on the morning of the 18th and was placed in reserve.

At Fredericksburg Humphrey's 3rd division made the last charge with bayonets only upon Marye's Heights. It is said that the division course was upset by the wounded and those who were seeking cover from previous units that had valiantly tried, but were viciously cut down, storming Marye's Heights. This gallant effort was applauded by Palfrey as the model that had the best chance of breaching the defenses at Marye's Heights and the one that should have been adopted from the start.

At Chancellorsville Humphrey's led the 3rd division and briefly commanded the V Corp. At Gettysburg Humphrey commanded the 2nd Div. III Corp and replaced Butterfield as AOP CoS. As CoS to Meade he continued in this position until he replace Hancock as II Corp commander during the early stages of the Petersburg Campaign. He was considered as Warren's replacement of the command of the V Corp in May, 1864 but Warren won a reprieve at Spotsylvania.

After the war Humphrey was named Chief of Engineers with the rank of BG in 1866. After retiring from the military he became a who's who in the worlds Science and Arts field. He was a member of several philosophical and Science societies and academies and was made an "honorary member of scientific and philosophical societies in Austria, France and Italy. Of his war experiences he wrote From Gettysburg to the Rapidan (1883) and The Virginia Campaign of 1864 and 1865 (1885). The latter is a standard work." ibid.

This post should serve as a reminder that rumors of the kind as put forward by the distinguished member of this forum do not serve any purpose other than to undeservedly smear the reputation of an accomplished individual. This type of smear has been one that Grant had to put up with even though he was actually a drunk for a very sad but small part of his life. It sure as heck didn't seem to affect his performance as a soldier and statesman.
When I get home I will quote the title of the book concerning Humphrey. It gives a different point of view about Humphrey.
Leftyhunter
 
Now, if the quoted OP position had been: was the average Confederate soldier on the front lines more often under harsher material conditions than his average Federal counterpart...

I think it is:

"5) "the needy condition which was common among the Southerners......while the Northern soldier were abundantly provided with everything" (typical Lost Cause argument?)"
 
When I get home I will quote the title of the book concerning Humphrey. It gives a different point of view about Humphrey.
Leftyhunter

Ok, but it's not going to change anything about his accomplishments in life. If he was really a drunk is it possible that he would have not only kept his rank and be promoted to responsible positions such as CoS and Corp command?
 
I am going to quote one example that should put this debate to bed.

124th NY with 220 men held off the famed 2nd Texas and part of Benning's brigade before retiring both its commanding officers were killed.

I could quote many many more from both-sides which goes to prove that a cohesion of a unit is vastly more important than where that unit comes from geographically.

And i must stress once again that defending will cause more casualties than attacking and considering the Union virtually steamrolled down the Mississippi taking various strong points along the way i would suggest the myth about Northern Troops being inferior is one of the biggest myths in the ACW.

Just to give you another example of myths like these being debunked.

A Scotsman is considered tough as nails and yet time and time again the English beat them in battle and yet all we ever here is Bannockburn and bloody Mel Gibson you don't hear anything about Flooden Fields , Pinkie Clough , Falkirk , Dumbar the list could go on so this Celtic nonsense is rubbish as well.

History and people mentality tend to big up the underdog giving them super human powers and the moral high ground most historians do it to sell books most film-makers to sell tickets.

The truth is we are all men and each of us is an individual but its how we work together that counts being inspired like the 124th NY by their two commanders or being proud of your battle flag is what makes better soldiers not where you come from.

All my opinion of course.

A very good example. But this thread is not intended to be a debate about which side had the better fighters but about Palfrey's reasons for arriving at his conclusions. It's in the OP:

"What I find of interest in this question are Palfrey's own conclusions. He's very "diffident" with his opinions and says he only raises this question "as a contribution to the discussion of the subject, than as an absolute solution to the problem." This is a good guide to follow and it's within the spirit in which this thread is created.
 
A very good example. But this thread is not intended to be a debate about which side had the better fighters but about Palfrey's reasons for arriving at his conclusions. It's in the OP:

"What I find of interest in this question are Palfrey's own conclusions. He's very "diffident" with his opinions and says he only raises this question "as a contribution to the discussion of the subject, than as an absolute solution to the problem." This is a good guide to follow and it's within the spirit in which this thread is created.

Palfrey has an opinion just like all of us he went bankrupt in the 1870s , He was also giving us his observations and like many civil war veterans writing books he was generous to his enemy bit like many modern military authors do , I mean the book would not sell very well if the enemy wasn't up-to scratch.

Some authors write because its their passion and they try to be as historically accurate as possible and some just write what the public wants hear to sell books like i stated before.

But in his defence Palfrey did not have the resources a modern historian has and as we well know even veterans can spin a good yarn or two.

Like i said before two the confederate greatest victory's were actually equal in casualties and can be explained via the element of surprise but as Grant mentions

Quote: “The natural disposition of most people is to clothe a commander of a large army whom they do not know, with almost superhuman abilities. A large part of the National army, for instance, and most of the press of the country, clothed General Lee with just such qualities, but I had known him personally, and knew that he was mortal; and it was just as well that I felt this.”

General Grant.
 
Ok, but it's not going to change anything about his accomplishments in life. If he was really a drunk is it possible that he would have not only kept his rank and be promoted to responsible positions such as CoS and Corp command?
I am just pointing out that the book is a very interesting counterpoint to Humphrey being a good general or not. People interested in the subject can make up their own mind's.
Leftyhunter
 
I think it is:

"5) "the needy condition which was common among the Southerners......while the Northern soldier were abundantly provided with everything" (typical Lost Cause argument?)"
@major bill had a thread a while back that showed even the Union Army couldn't always provide all it's soldiers with shoes. It wasn't unknown for Union soldiers to go hungry particularly during the earlier part of the siege of Chattanooga before General Hooker could establish the Cracker Line.
Leftyhunter
 
But this thread is not intended to be a debate about which side had the better fighters but about Palfrey's reasons for arriving at his conclusions.

Just trying to understand what you're getting at here, what kind of discussion you were hoping to generate. In the OP, you had listed some of Palfrey's conclusions, such as:

"different modes of life at the South and at the North ... the intenser and more passionate character of the Southerner ... the comparatively lawless (not to speak invidiously) life at the South... The Southerner felt the gaudium certaminis (joy of battle). With the Northerners it was different. ... the needy condition which was common among the Southerners......while the Northern soldier were abundantly provided with everything" (typical Lost Cause argument?)
6) For the Southerner a field won was a field to plunder.

But from what I'm hearing now, you weren't hoping to provoke a discussion about whether all of these conclusions were accurate, but rather to look at Palfrey's reasons for coming to them. I think I missed that and maybe got lost in the weeds (maybe going by the thread's title as much as its text). Just trying to clarify, because it sounds now as if you were trying to get at something more subtle than whether Southern boys were tougher than Yanks.

Roy B.
 
Palfrey’s conclusions are pretty much 19C Political Propaganda. Observations to somehow dehumanize Southerners. Same Notions and Propaganda used to propagate the Slave Power Narrative.

Were people’s attitudes different in Boston vs New Orleans, probably. Majority of Yankee Soldiers came from the Mid West. 20% were Immigrants or Sons of Immigrants. So, a minority were from the North East. The population that is portrayed as highly civilized and Harvard Grads.

So, I call his analysis BS.
 
If Humphreys was a drunk it somehow has gone almost completely unnoticed by historians. And it's not like he's a diefied figure like Lee that people try to protect.

The only thing I found in a Google search is an article hosted on the Army's website about Humphrey's division at Antietam and Fredericksburg. It only refers to his drinking once, in regards to him probably being drunk during a goodbye party for McClellan. Since "alcohol flowed freely" at said event he was sure far from the only one deep in his cups that day.

Now we really need someone to write a Humphreys biography. (His personal papers are available.)
 
Out-Manned, Out-Gunned, Out-Supplied, but Never Out -Fought.
The one thing that carried the South for so long, was the superior leadership of it’s Generals,& the Soldiers complete trust in them ! It took real leadership to inspire their men to repeatedly fight overwhelming odds with amazing success until depredations & attrition wore them down. Soldiers often fought without guns, ammo, food, winter coats or shoes. I haven’t read of Northern soldiers fighting in similar conditions. They were so well supplied & cared for.
Well said. :thumbsup:
 
Back
Top