Never had a chance.

[wausaubob]

Here is the link to Mr. Foote's comments which became part of Ken Burns' documentary:

1. The Homestead Act is a reference to the continuation of domestic migration and international immigration. International immigration was adding people to US workforce about as fast as the war was causing casualties. Domestic migration had both an east to west component and a south to north component. It is very hard to win a war when the opponent's work force is growing due to external addition even as the war is going on.
2. Marvelous inventions refers mainly to agricultural innovations that were mechanizing planting, combining and threshing. Sewing machines were also spreading through the US economy. With respect to the war, there was an ongoing revolution as to bi metallic electrical cells, the batteries that resulted when they were connected in a series, and the use of the telegraph that resulted. By 1864 the US experiments in field telegraphs were bearing some fruit, despite problems managing the equipment. As a way of quickly reporting information already known to the opponent, it caused a large acceleration in the pace of war. The Civil War caused an enormous amount of railroad work to be jammed into four years. Railroad maintenance and construction and railroad management took a huge step forward. It was no coincidence that after the end of the US Civil War, the US completed a transcontinental railroad withing 49 months of the end of the war.
3. With respect to Harvard v Yale boat races, its just a reference to how little the Civil War displaced life in the US. Colleges functioned. The states and counties held their fairs. Settlement of the west proceeded, and even labor strife went on as in peace time. The New York press, and other papers in the Democratic press sold papers by agitating distress, but the US was basically undamaged and expanding as the war continued.

 

[wausaubob]

Traditional Civil War history begins with a comparison of the two belligerents based on the 1860 census. But Mr. Foote's comment points to not where the US was in 1860, but were it was going to be by 1880 with respect to railroads, steel, petroleum and odd things like harvested and factory ice.
https://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1880a_v2-16.pdf#[0,{%22name%22:%22FitH%22},805]

 

[Pete Longstreet]

I think for not getting into great detail, and just a few words, Foote paints a good picture of how doomed the south was from the beginning. The south never had a chance. It was either foreign recognition or break the Union will to fight. Because there was no way of overcoming the northern industrial machine or population.

 

[Lubliner]

Speaking of innovations, I noticed sometime ago the list of Patent Rights approved in Washington and recorded in the Evening Star. The few examples I took down are from 1854, but realize these innovations continued to profit the North.
PATENT RIGHTS

Oct 10, 1854, Evening Star announcement on railroading.

+Charles P. Bailey of Zanesville, Ohio: For improvement

In railroad car seats.

+Benj. F. Gossin, of Covington, Ky.: For improvement in

Railroad chair machinery.

Rob't Grant, of New York, N. Y.: For improvement in

Brakes for checking and starting cars.

Samuel Carpenter, of Flushing,, N. Y.: For improved

Machine for turning hubs, tool handles, etc.

+Henry Tongue, of Nashville, Tenn.: For improvement in steam engines.

+Irvin A. Williams, of Utica, N. Y.: For improved locomotive lamp.

Lubliner.

 

[wausaubob]

Speaking of innovations, I noticed sometime ago the list of Patent Rights approved in Washington and recorded in the Evening Star. The few examples I took down are from 1854, but realize these innovations continued to profit the North.
PATENT RIGHTS

Oct 10, 1854, Evening Star announcement on railroading.

+Charles P. Bailey of Zanesville, Ohio: For improvement

In railroad car seats.

+Benj. F. Gossin, of Covington, Ky.: For improvement in

Railroad chair machinery.

Rob't Grant, of New York, N. Y.: For improvement in

Brakes for checking and starting cars.

Samuel Carpenter, of Flushing,, N. Y.: For improved

Machine for turning hubs, tool handles, etc.

+Henry Tongue, of Nashville, Tenn.: For improvement in steam engines.

+Irvin A. Williams, of Utica, N. Y.: For improved locomotive lamp.

Lubliner.

The big improvements were going to be nitro glycerin for blasting which quickly became dynamite. The Janney automatic railroad car coupler was available early about 1867, but spread slowly because it eliminated yard work. Westinghouse's air breaks spread very fast as it meant men did not have to scramble on top of cars to add breaking power.
Dynamite was not a military explosive. But for demolition and trenching it would have been valuable. I suppose there could have a way to throw or hurl a dynamite grenade during trench warfare.

 

[leftyhunter]

Here is the link to Mr. Foote's comments which became part of Ken Burns' documentary:

1. The Homestead Act is a reference to the continuation of domestic migration and international immigration. International immigration was adding people to US workforce about as fast as the war was causing casualties. Domestic migration had both an east to west component and a south to north component. It is very hard to win a war when the opponent's work force is growing due to external addition even as the war is going on.
2. Marvelous inventions refers mainly to agricultural innovations that were mechanizing planting, combining and threshing. Sewing machines were also spreading through the US economy. With respect to the war, there was an ongoing revolution as to bi metallic electrical cells, the batteries that resulted when they were connected in a series, and the use of the telegraph that resulted. By 1864 the US experiments in field telegraphs were bearing some fruit, despite problems managing the equipment. As a way of quickly reporting information already known to the opponent, it caused a large acceleration in the pace of war. The Civil War caused an enormous amount of railroad work to be jammed into four years. Railroad maintenance and construction and railroad management took a huge step forward. It was no coincidence that after the end of the US Civil War, the US completed a transcontinental railroad withing 49 months of the end of the war.
3. With respect to Harvard v Yale boat races, its just a reference to how little the Civil War displaced life in the US. Colleges functioned. The states and counties held their fairs. Settlement of the west proceeded, and even labor strife went on as in peace time. The New York press, and other papers in the Democratic press sold papers by agitating distress, but the US was basically undamaged and expanding as the war continued.

Far more importantly forty percent of the South's population is enslaved which provides the Union with invaluable men for military service and or labor.
A significant amount of the white population is not willing to fight and die for the Confedracy quite the opposite with 104k enlisting in the Union Army.
If a smaller section big a country wants to seceede it needs all hands on deck not oppressed forty percent of it's population based on skin color.
Leftyhunter

 

[mcrow43]

Yeah, I think things were stacked against the South from the start. Not only did they have fewer men, but less wealth, and as stated above more of the immigration was coming into NY than the South. They would have needed a series of major blunders by the North to have won.

 

[unionblue]

@wausaubob ,

An excellent topic with good member participation.

Congrats on both.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[Pat Answer]

It was either foreign recognition or break the Union will to fight. Because there was no way of overcoming the northern industrial machine or population.

Herein has always lain the rub for me. What was it that Confederate leaders saw in 1861 that would ensure either or both of the first two possibilities (given the impossibility of the third)?

 

[bankerpapaw]

The South did, indeed, not stand a chance. By the time of Lee's surrender, the South wasn't even capable of feeding their army.

 

[Pete Longstreet]

Herein has always lain the rub for me. What was it that Confederate leaders saw in 1861 that would ensure either or both of the first two possibilities (given the impossibility of the third)?

The Southern politicians and planters completely underestimated the fight drive of one man... Abraham Lincoln.

 

[unionblue]

The Southern politicians and planters completely underestimated the fight drive of one man... Abraham Lincoln.

In reality, so did the Northern politicians and population.

 

[Pete Longstreet]

In reality, so did the Northern politicians and population.

That is true. He refused to bend or break.

 

[wausaubob]

Herein has always lain the rub for me. What was it that Confederate leaders saw in 1861 that would ensure either or both of the first two possibilities (given the impossibility of the third)?

Foreign intervention was not likely to occur right away. Britain and the US entered the war period to last until the summer of 1862. The Confederate leadership were not inside cotton traders, and they were at some distance from dominant cotton markets in Liverpool and Manchester, so they were able to occur that the textile industry was headed toward an over supply situation as the end of 1860.
They were deliberately ignoring the both the northern Democrats and the Republicans were abandoning defense of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, as part of overall settlement with Great Britain. On that issue, they were deliberately ignoring on the available evidence and political trends. By the fall of 1862, when foreign intervention was possible, the Confederacy had already been seriously, but not completely cut off from western Europe.

 

[wausaubob]

Herein has always lain the rub for me. What was it that Confederate leaders saw in 1861 that would ensure either or both of the first two possibilities (given the impossibility of the third)?

On the second possibility, they were correct about the possibility. But as the war proceeded, they ignored that by the time war exhaustion was setting in, the US had taken the border areas, the far west, and that part of the internal river system that was most valuable to the US.
There could have been an armistice and a continuance of slavery. However, as Mr. Foote noted, it would have barely changed the trajectory of US growth. The independence they would have achieved would have left the Confederacy in a position as occurred in actual events. At the point at which the US was discouraged, the Confederacy would be so badly damaged that it could not recover quickly.

 

[wausaubob]

There were several miscalculations about the ability of the US to fight the war. The first miscalculation had to deal with the ability of the US to use the telegraph system to accelerate the initial mobilization and to fix mistakes as they occurred.
The other basic error had to deal with vastly under estimating the power of steam driven naval vessels. This stability and maneuverability was joined to the power of large naval guns to fire explosive shell on a flat, accurate trajectory. This made a wooden fighting ship obsolete relative to a fighting ship with either built in or added on armor. This miscalculation led them to miscalculate the power of their fortifications.
In general, the Confederates vastly underestimated the engineering advantage of the US military forces.

 

[wausaubob]

Mr. Foote never engages in deriding the immigrants, mechanics or financial workers, that gave the US overwhelming strength. In that regard he does not indulge the prejudices of the Confederate advocates as expressed in the lead up to the war.

 

[wausaubob]

I never interpreted Mr. Foote's comment as a Lost Cause justification. His narrative is romantic and epic. But in discussing the Civil War with Burns he highlighted the tragedy of the Civil War.

 

[Pete Longstreet]

I never interpreted Mr. Foote's comment as a Lost Cause justification. His narrative is romantic and epic. But in discussing the Civil War with Burns he highlighted the tragedy of the Civil War.

I've heard several people call him a "lost causer". I disagree. He speaks about the war as if he lived during that time period... and he's just a pleasure to listen to. One of the reasons Ken Burns chose Foote was because his ability to captivate an audience with his storytelling, and his incredible memory regarding small details of the war, or quotes from the soldiers.

 

[leftyhunter]

Here is the link to Mr. Foote's comments which became part of Ken Burns' documentary:

1. The Homestead Act is a reference to the continuation of domestic migration and international immigration. International immigration was adding people to US workforce about as fast as the war was causing casualties. Domestic migration had both an east to west component and a south to north component. It is very hard to win a war when the opponent's work force is growing due to external addition even as the war is going on.
2. Marvelous inventions refers mainly to agricultural innovations that were mechanizing planting, combining and threshing. Sewing machines were also spreading through the US economy. With respect to the war, there was an ongoing revolution as to bi metallic electrical cells, the batteries that resulted when they were connected in a series, and the use of the telegraph that resulted. By 1864 the US experiments in field telegraphs were bearing some fruit, despite problems managing the equipment. As a way of quickly reporting information already known to the opponent, it caused a large acceleration in the pace of war. The Civil War caused an enormous amount of railroad work to be jammed into four years. Railroad maintenance and construction and railroad management took a huge step forward. It was no coincidence that after the end of the US Civil War, the US completed a transcontinental railroad withing 49 months of the end of the war.
3. With respect to Harvard v Yale boat races, its just a reference to how little the Civil War displaced life in the US. Colleges functioned. The states and counties held their fairs. Settlement of the west proceeded, and even labor strife went on as in peace time. The New York press, and other papers in the Democratic press sold papers by agitating distress, but the US was basically undamaged and expanding as the war continued.

Far more importantly forty percent of the South's population is enslaved which provides the Union with invaluable men for military service and or labor.
A significant amount of the white population is not willing to fight and die for the Confedracy quite the opposite with 104k enlisting in the Union Army.
If a smaller section big a country wants to seceede it needs all hands on deck not oppressed forty percent of it's population based on skin color.
Leftyhunter

Herein has always lain the rub for me. What was it that Confederate leaders saw in 1861 that would ensure either or both of the first two possibilities (given the impossibility of the third)?

Because the Secessionists actually beleived that the Union would quickly capitulate and have no stomach for war after maybe a few short sharp battles. One major secessionst leader said he would drink all the blood spilled in a thimble.
Leftyhunter