Mathematical certainty of the outcome.

Valid points but it's an example of different hypothetical outcomes. Point is there was more then one way to take out Richmond.
Leftyhunter
Not really, no. To attack Richmond successfully you either have to get an army close (enough to cut all the rail lines such that the city cannot sustain itself) or get an army close (enough to actually attack the city itself).

Now, there's more than one way to get an army close, but historically speaking the only successful methods involved using supply from the York and James rivers. Without that source of supply you have to win battles that Grant lost even with nearly a 2:1 numerical advantage (fighting down the rail lines from the north) or you have to have an absolutely enormous open flank (coming up from the south, your open flank is considerably more than a hundred miles long).
 
The United States, despite all its shouting, was not going to be trapped in a three front war. The history of the American Revolution and the War of 1812 was immediately in mind.
I wanted to look at this one, because it's not really true. What matters in Trent is not "the United States" but Abraham Lincoln and William Seward.

Seward knew it would be a mistake to go to war with Britain, but it took him three days to argue Lincoln around to realize this. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that Lincoln would instead ask for the matter to go to international arbitration (his own preferred option) which would have constituted a rejection of the British ultimatum and triggered a war.
 
all of this is true but the south had a very good opportunity to win the war by playing a defensive game. Remember the North had to invade the South only needed to hold it was a great mistake to attack and use up their man, power. I guess it was a matter of honor to attack. Gen.. Robert E Lee might have been a good general but he gave the North exactly what they wanted.
 
all of this is true but the south had a very good opportunity to win the war by playing a defensive game.

Exactly how? If they have only one frontline to fight - maybe. But they have frontlines all around! By mid-1863, they were basically surrounded by the Union logistic network! The Union could move troops and supplies and launch the attack at any poin of Confederacy perimeter they wanted, and Confederacy could only react with much delay, because Confederacy internal communications were already overstretched and they could not move troops and supplies fast enought (not to mention that they have far less troops and supplies to use).
 
By the middle of 1863, the United States not only occupied most of Tennessee and Louisiana, but Arkansas and Texas were so separated from the Confederacy that it was hard to get a letter from Richmond to Texas.
The historiography does not change at all at that point. Everything is written about as the same dramatic contingency existed. But obviously that did change things, so the whole contingent outcome analysis we have inherited fails to take into affect any of demographic facts.
The real contingency was releasing the Confederates from their tragedy before all the white males died, and before starvation started killing the bulk of the population.
By the middle of 1863 Mississippi had been removed from the Confederate economy, and according to Grant, there was quite a peace feeling their in 1863.
 
Exactly how? If they have only one frontline to fight - maybe. But they have frontlines all around! By mid-1863, they were basically surrounded by the Union logistic network! The Union could move troops and supplies and launch the attack at any poin of Confederacy perimeter they wanted, and Confederacy could only react with much delay, because Confederacy internal communications were already overstretched and they could not move troops and supplies fast enought (not to mention that they have far less troops and supplies to use).
The outcome of the Chattanooga campaign proves how hopeless was the mismatch.
The Confederates produced a great tactical victory at Chickamauga. The United States assembled three armies in Chattanooga, plus Burnside sitting in Knoxville, poured supplies into the city, and assembled a A+ team of commanders, with a host of observers like Dana and Meigs, and routed the Confederates.
 
I wanted to look at this one, because it's not really true. What matters in Trent is not "the United States" but Abraham Lincoln and William Seward.

Seward knew it would be a mistake to go to war with Britain, but it took him three days to argue Lincoln around to realize this. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that Lincoln would instead ask for the matter to go to international arbitration (his own preferred option) which would have constituted a rejection of the British ultimatum and triggered a war.
I huge war of words, enthusiastically reported by the press and a great distraction for the United States from the lack of early progress in the war. The Trent affair was settled, the war picked up in Kentucky and Tennessee. The United States captured New Orleans, and never was a shot fired.
It is just another over dramatic episode trying to turn each event into Henry V or Macbeth, when it was really All's Well That Ends Well.
 
Neutrality was a good thing for Britain. They could make money on both sides, and still get wheat and a little bit of high quality US cotton.
 
I huge war of words, enthusiastically reported by the press and a great distraction for the United States from the lack of early progress in the war. The Trent affair was settled, the war picked up in Kentucky and Tennessee. The United States captured New Orleans, and never was a shot fired.
Two shots were fired, both by the San Jacinto, and that was a major part of what made everyone in Britain unhappy. They were warning shots, but fired without calling the Trent to pull over and accompanied by a threat of hitting the unarmed RMS Trent with a full broadside.

By all accounts, however, Trent was very close to a war. It couldn't have been better calculated to enrage the British unless they'd actually killed someone.
 
I think that based on the relative size of the military age population, and probable enlistment rates, McClellan at the start of the war, and Grant at the end of the war, knew with certainty, that if the United States fully mobilized, the United States would win, no matter what.

That was in fact what actually happened. But the wild card was that the south still had a chance to overcome that advantage by achieving significant military victories to wear down the will of the northern population to continue the war. While that did not happen, it was not a certainty at the start of the war that it could not play out that way.
 
Two shots were fired, both by the San Jacinto, and that was a major part of what made everyone in Britain unhappy. They were warning shots, but fired without calling the Trent to pull over and accompanied by a threat of hitting the unarmed RMS Trent with a full broadside.

By all accounts, however, Trent was very close to a war. It couldn't have been better calculated to enrage the British unless they'd actually killed someone.
That's a comedy written by Jonathan Swift. The Americans and the English arguing about which end of a soft boiled egg should be opened first.
20,000 people are going to die and the British are going to spend 5 million pounds because some over zealous idiot took two Confederate wannabe diplomats off a British ship? What an enormous humbuggery!
Eventually Earl Russell let Thurlow wander off into the garden with Lady Russell, and she reminded Weed, it is still England and people who want to keep their heads and careers don't argue with the Queen.
 
Last edited:
That was in fact what actually happened. But the wild card was that the south still had a chance to overcome that advantage by achieving significant military victories to wear down the will of the northern population to continue the war. While that did not happen, it was not a certainty at the start of the war that it could not play out that way.
The secessionists warned the potential Republican voters that voting for Lincoln might cause secession. The United States as a people, and the major financial interests fought the war as if fundamental interests were at issue. The Richmond and New York press went on for weeks and months as if the United States would reject the war, but in real history between August 1, 1864 and September 22, 1864, the Confederate war effort collapsed. They were beaten in all theaters.
 
Although they were sure to lose, the tragedy is that because of the fundamental interests involved on their side, the basics of human nature mandated they try anyway,
 
That's a comedy written by Jonathan Swift. The Americans and the English arguing about which end of a soft boiled egg should be opened first.

That is a terrible characterization of it. What is at stake here is the entire concept of neutrality and the freedom of the seas.

20,000 people are going to die and the British are going to spend 5 million pounds because some over zealous idiot took two Confederate wannabe diplomats off a British ship? What an enormous humbuggery!

No, the British are goiong to go to war because the US has supported the actions of Wilkes. The British ultimatum was intended to shock the Americans into apologizing - because the actions of Wilkes make a mockery of the concept of neutrality and because the reaction of the US to this was to vote him the thanks of Congress and celebrate publicly. The British had already been seeing the US playing fast and loose with neutrality law, but the boarding of the Trent was a total violation of it. Among the many ways it was illegal, the US had spent the past several years insisting it was not possible to sign a mutual right of seach treaty with the British and the past several months protesting that the British had recognized the CSA as a belligerent - even though that recognition as a belligerent was the only thing letting them blockade the South at all.

The Union had been trying to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds, and as far as the British were concerned the actions of Wilkes were not merely beyond the pale but an active attempt to provoke them into a war.

ED: if it helps to get across how badly the Union had screwed up, this was considered an international matter (as it was, it was a matter of the Union violating what international law existed). There were expressions of support for the British sent by the French, Russians, Prussians and Austrians, and in hindsight it's not surprising because Royal Mail Ships were the global infrastructure of the time - they were how international communication took place, and had not yet been supplanted by the telegraph network.
Nobody else had anything like the same scale of mail ship network, and the British allowed everyone to use it - so the US declaring it can board a Royal Mail Ship, illegally, on a whim, and not need to justify itself? That's political black powder.

Eventually Earl Russell let Thurlow wander off into the garden with Lady Russell, and she reminded Weed, it is still England and people who want to keep their heads and careers don't argue with the Queen.

What on earth are you talking about? It wasn't the Queen who prevented war, it was Lincoln and Seward by conceding (on, I might add, the last day before the expiry of the ultimatum) and releasing the prisoners. They still didn't apologize, but the British were gracious enough to drop the matter there.
 
Last edited:
It was always the Union's war to loose and despite some rough patchs the Union never permanently lost territory. No war is won on the defense but I welcome any major examples in the last 150 years to prove me wrong.
Leftyhunter
I don't want to make a big issue of this, because you are mostly right, but two examples of winning on defense: Korean War, Arab-Israeli War 1948.
 
I don't want to make a big issue of this, because you are mostly right, but two examples of winning on defense: Korean War, Arab-Israeli War 1948.
Not really. The Korean War is regarded by many military historians as at best a draw or an American military defeat.
The largest defeat the American military suffered was during the Chinese Winter Offensive in 1950.Over one hundred thousand UN ( mostly U.S. troops had to be withdrawn by sea from North Korean ports.
The UN forces were pushed well south of Seoul and had to go on the offence up to the 38th parallel.
I seem to recall Israeli forces went has far north has Beirut. I will double check but most likely the Israelis won on the offense.
Leftyhunter
 
Not really. The Korean War is regarded by many military historians as at best a draw or an American military defeat.
The largest defeat the American military suffered was during the Chinese Winter Offensive in 1950.Over one hundred thousand UN ( mostly U.S. troops had to be withdrawn by sea from North Korean ports.
The UN forces were pushed well south of Seoul and had to go on the offence up to the 38th parallel.
I seem to recall Israeli forces went has far north has Beirut. I will double check but most likely the Israelis won on the offense.
Leftyhunter
Both South Korea and Israel were as much on the defense as the Confederacy. That did not preclude either of them from making an offensive move into enemy territory. Just a note, not worth arguing about.
 
Both South Korea and Israel were as much on the defense as the Confederacy. That did not preclude either of them from making an offensive move into enemy territory. Just a note, not worth arguing about.
They were intialy on the defense but there was quite a bit of offensive warfare . My original point is wars are not won on the defense. The side that can not sieze and hold enemy territory is always going to be the loosing side.
Leftyhunter
 
The drama and contingency are derived from how long would take, how many men would die, and how dreadful would the aftermath be.
If New York City mattered as much as the New Yorkers thought it did, there probably would not have been a Civil War.
But there were actually 8 contiguous western states in the Midwest, and the voting age, military age population of that region was more important that New York City.
The entire contingency argument is based on the west as being unimportant and Richmond being everything.
That is not how the war proceeded and it is incorrect.
The population and the railroad system in the Midwest crushed the Confederacy, an any defeat in the west was nothing more than a temporary setback.
 
Statistics couldn't have predicted whether or not the North was going to be willing to fight the war out all the way to the end. Many predicted that they would not be willing to pay the heavy price of military victory, and I'm not just talking about dollars.
 
Back
Top