Never had a chance.

[Piedone]

Correct, but some of our friends on here think losing is admirable.

I beg to disagree.

I deem it possible to recognize that even a loser could have fought cleverly and tenaciously, remember Georg Foreman.

I deem it even possible to recognize that - even if that loser fought for a dubious team, a corrupt manager and to the applause of hotheaded and unreasonable fans.

But you are of course right that this appreciation of the boxer
should not lead to overlooking the dubiousness of the team and the corruptness of the manager...

 

[Pete Longstreet]

I have never really understood Davis. He really wanted to be Albert Sydney Johnston & command an army in the field. Unlike Lincoln, he seemed to be impervious to learning from experience. Personally, he was a very decent man. I often wonder if being a slave-holder had not ripped an irreparable hole in his psyche.

This is true. Lincoln would remove a commander at the drop of a dime... Davis would keep these men despite failure after failure. I think Davis was loyal to a fault. He was loyal to his friends, even though they were failing the country. But he disliked Joe Johnston, yet kept him around until the end. I feel like if Lincoln was in charge... Joe Johnston would have been relieved of command permanently.

 

[Lost Cause]

Correct, but some of our friends on here think losing is admirable.

...or clinging to hindsight .

 

[Rhea Cole]

This is true. Lincoln would remove a commander at the drop of a dime... Davis would keep these men despite failure after failure. I think Davis was loyal to a fault. He was loyal to his friends, even though they were failing the country. But he disliked Joe Johnston, yet kept him around until the end. I feel like if Lincoln was in charge... Joe Johnston would have been relieved of command permanently.

Are you familiar with Mrs Chestnut's observations on Lincoln firing incompetents & Davis clinging to the same gang of cronies? She pretty well summed up the case in a way hat needs no comment from me.

 

[Pete Longstreet]

Are you familiar with Mrs Chestnut's observations on Lincoln firing incompetents & Davis clinging to the same gang of cronies? She pretty well summed up the case in a way hat needs no comment from me.

I am not familiar with that... but will research it. Thanks.

 

[wausaubob]

I am not a believer in the Great Man theories. If not for Lincoln, it would have been someone else. But Lincoln does illustrate that in 1860 the US stood at the junction between pre-literate story telling, and the importance of live oratory, and the increasing dominance of publishing of books, newspaper and magazines. Lincoln's drive to be a self taught reader, and not be isolated on the illiterate side of the change, was very typical of mid 19th century America. For Lincoln to emerge from the frontier and be able to stand his ground vs Seward, Stanton and the Blairs, is an amazing historical achievement.

 

[Rhea Cole]

I am not a believer in the Great Man theories. If not for Lincoln, it would have been someone else. But Lincoln does illustrate that in 1860 the US stood at the junction between pre-literate story telling, and the importance of live oratory, and the increasing dominance of publishing of books, newspaper and magazines. Lincoln's drive to be a self taught reader, and not be isolated on the illiterate side of the change, was very typical of mid 19th century America. For Lincoln to emerge from the frontier and be able to stand his ground vs Seward, Stanton and the Blairs, is an amazing historical achievement.

Lincoln reminds me very much of what I was told when I started my green coal blacksmithing classes. At that point I had a lifetime of design & hands on craft experience. I had even done some glass blowing. The man who became my mentor gave me th best piece of advice I could have received.

"Be humble, be teachable."

You can attend a blacksmithing class 52 weeks a year. There are no secrets on blacksmithing. Anyone who sincerely wants to learn the craft is welcomed with open arms.

Be humble, be teachable was Lincoln's mantra. From day one, he was schooled in the art of command in the harshest curriculum imaginable. Davis, on the other hand, apparently believed his Mexican War experience was all he needed to know. We all know how that turned out.

 

[wausaubob]

Lincoln reminds me very much of what I was told when I started my green coal blacksmithing classes. At that point I had a lifetime of design & hands on craft experience. I had even done some glass blowing. The man who became my mentor gave me th best piece of advice I could have received.

"Be humble, be teachable."

You can attend a blacksmithing class 52 weeks a year. There are no secrets on blacksmithing. Anyone who sincerely wants to learn the craft is welcomed with open arms.

Be humble, be teachable was Lincoln's mantra. From day one, he was schooled in the art of command in the harshest curriculum imaginable. Davis, on the other hand, apparently believed his Mexican War experience was all he needed to know. We all know how that turned out.

Lincoln was flanked by Seward, one of the best politicians of the era, and Stanton, one of the most diligent lawyers of the era. The willingness of the three of them to try Halleck as the army commander, and then change out Halleck for Grant, illustrates a very high commitment to competence, and demonstrated effectiveness. There are other names one could mention that would support the same observation.
Jefferson Davis could rely on Judah Benjamin. But overall the quality of the Confederate cabinet was less, simply because it was the smaller belligerent and had a smaller talent pool to select from.
Lincoln is evidence of the kind of problem that Foote was speaking about. Once people like Lincoln, the Illinois railroad lawyer, rose to the top of the US power structure, it was nearly inevitable that a military/RR complex would emerge and the rural south, that Foote knew so well, was not able to compete.

 

[OpnCoronet]

Most on this board have got it accurately enough. It boils down to the fact that that the leaders of the secession movement were true believers in their own propaganda.

The myth of the beleagured South holding the torch of freedom and demacracy against the unbelieving hordes of the North. That the North was full of mudsills greasy mechanics interesting only in money who had no stomach for hardship and no military ability to compare with those of the southern yeoman farmers.

Most importantly, they did not really believe that the North would fight, when the time for fighting began, as compared with southerners.

The interesting thing, to me, is that IMO, the myth was close to being true. But, close, in a war of national survival, Close, was not nearly enough.

 

[lurid]

I beg to disagree.

I deem it possible to recognize that even a loser could have fought cleverly and tenaciously, remember Georg Foreman.

I deem it even possible to recognize that - even if that loser fought for a dubious team, a corrupt manager and to the applause of hotheaded and unreasonable fans.

But you are of course right that this appreciation of the boxer
should not lead to overlooking the dubiousness of the team and the corruptness of the manager...

Okay, you beg to disagree, permission granted. I'm a proponent of free speech anyway, so whatever.

Your post makes no sense to me because I made a post in here explaining my position and you responded to the post where I didn't explain anything. I don't know if you are giving me a boxing analogy or a 1919 Black Sox analogy? Nevertheless, neither one pertains to the Confederacy because they didn't do so well and should have, IMO. My philosophy has nothing to do with the corruptness of the high command of the Confederacy or its cheerleaders, and everything to do with war theory.

I specifically said the Confederates "could" have won or "should" have lasted way longer than four years, but they underperformed and bailed quite early, especially for an army who was dug in(fortified). See post: #81. Have you served in infantry or on a operational level? It doesn't mean everything, but it gives a better perspective on how ground wars are/were conducted(no matter the era) than reading from a book. The problem with war theory on the internet is that it is spouted out by bloggers that attribute victory to superior numbers and resources without any qualms, but there are other areas that should be covered and I noticed that are never covered because to be candid, I don't think they know anything about it.

It is just easier for people to just to attribute Union victory to superior numbers and resources and say that the Confederates were this formidable army and were outmatched at every turn and gave it the old college try and fought to the bitter end but just were overwhelmed. Nonsense. War theory 101 states that if an army goes on the offense they require a 2:1 advantage, even though the Union hardly had that advantage in a lot of battles. There were contemporary armies who were outgunned, outmanned, out resourced and were literally almost "bombed" into oblivion and lasted way longer than the Confederacy. Can you or anyone else explain that phenomenon? According to logic on this board, we would have to say that the NVA(north Vietnamese army) and the Mujahideen(insurgents in Afghanistan) were better soldiers than the Confederacy? Both were were outmanned, out resourced out supplied and lacked the technology just like the Confederacy and lasted way longer.

After you read post #81 you should be able to understand my position a little better, perhaps even to the point that you will set aside your traditionally views on war theory and yes, you will be able to make a comparison of contemporary wars to old-fashioned wars, that is if you are imaginative and can get passed your perfunctory reading and liberal consensus on how wars are won or lost? I'm telling you and whomever else reads this post that the Confederates could have won that war or could have at least lasted more than four lousy years.

...or clinging to hindsight .

Yaaawwwnnn.

 

[lurid]

Or maybe the Union had a better strategy and the will to win, and that's why the Confederacy only lasted four years? My personal opinion is the Confederates had the defensive advantage in a non-technocracy era.

 

[Piedone]

Okay, you beg to disagree, permission granted. I'm a proponent of free speech anyway, so whatever.

Your post makes no sense to me because I made a post in here explaining my position and you responded to the post where I didn't explain anything. I don't know if you are giving me a boxing analogy or a 1919 Black Sox analogy? Nevertheless, neither one pertains to the Confederacy because they didn't do so well and should have, IMO. My philosophy has nothing to do with the corruptness of the high command of the Confederacy or its cheerleaders, and everything to do with war theory.

I specifically said the Confederates "could" have won or "should" have lasted way longer than four years, but they underperformed and bailed quite early, especially for an army who was dug in(fortified). See post: #81. Have you served in infantry or on a operational level? It doesn't mean everything, but it gives a better perspective on how ground wars are/were conducted(no matter the era) than reading from a book. The problem with war theory on the internet is that it is spouted out by bloggers that attribute victory to superior numbers and resources without any qualms, but there are other areas that should be covered and I noticed that are never covered because to be candid, I don't think they know anything about it.

It is just easier for people to just to attribute Union victory to superior numbers and resources and say that the Confederates were this formidable army and were outmatched at every turn and gave it the old college try and fought to the bitter end but just were overwhelmed. Nonsense. War theory 101 states that if an army goes on the offense they require a 2:1 advantage, even though the Union hardly had that advantage in a lot of battles. There were contemporary armies who were outgunned, outmanned, out resourced and were literally almost "bombed" into oblivion and lasted way longer than the Confederacy. Can you or anyone else explain that phenomenon? According to logic on this board, we would have to say that the NVA(north Vietnamese army) and the Mujahideen(insurgents in Afghanistan) were better soldiers than the Confederacy? Both were were outmanned, out resourced out supplied and lacked the technology just like the Confederacy and lasted way longer.

After you read post #81 you should be able to understand my position a little better, perhaps even to the point that you will set aside your traditionally views on war theory and yes, you will be able to make a comparison of contemporary wars to old-fashioned wars, that is if you are imaginative and can get passed your perfunctory reading and liberal consensus on how wars are won or lost? I'm telling you and whomever else reads this post that the Confederates could have won that war or could have at least lasted more than four lousy years.

Yaaawwwnnn.

I have absolutely no idea why I have the personal privilege to receive such a broadside from you.

It is YOUR opinion, that the Confederates were underperforming.
And it is YOUR opinion that everyone who has another opinion about this particular point thinks "losing is admirable".

As I said before: I am absolutely no friend of such oversimplifications (winners vs. loosers).
And I deem it even more extremely difficult to judge about the performance of "THE" Confederates because we have (as always) a group of people with some people overperforming and some others blundering infernally and the rest being just average.

Please do consider that such an impressive myriad of books about the Civil War just wouldn´t have been written if an assessment of all those events would really be so simple and unambiguous (as you suggest).

And I would gladly and readily argue against some of the claims you expressed in your post #110
- but at the present moment I feel you might just not be willed to accept any dissent.

 

[Piedone]

And by the way as a matter of fact I was indeed in the army for some years - but I cannot see how this would be relevant here - as we are talking about warfare in the 19th century - and we all are just armchair-generals regarding that age...

 

[Rhea Cole]

How about a suggestion? This is an open forum. Anybody is welcome to comment on anything posted on a thread. There is a profound lack of nuance in online communication. With the very exception of individuals who argue just for arguments sake, the point is to discuss history. Nobody knows anybody well enough to make it personal, so don't take it personally.

 

[Piedone]

edited

 

[19thGeorgia]

"Never had a chance"

Didn't Lincoln (according to some here: all wise/all knowing/all seeing/omnipotent) on more than one occasion express doubts about winning the war?

 

[Andersonh1]

"It had got to be," said he [Lincoln], "Mid-summer, 1862. Things had gone on from bad to worse, until I felt that we had reached the end of our rope on the plan of operations we had been pursuing; that we had about played our last card, and must change our tactics, or lose the game! I now determined upon the adoption of the emancipation policy;" - published in the New York Times and attributed to F. B. Carpenter, who said Lincoln told him the story.

 

[Rhea Cole]

"It had got to be," said he [Lincoln], "Mid-summer, 1862. Things had gone on from bad to worse, until I felt that we had reached the end of our rope on the plan of operations we had been pursuing; that we had about played our last card, and must change our tactics, or lose the game! I now determined upon the adoption of the emancipation policy;" - published in the New York Times and attributed to F. B. Carpenter, who said Lincoln told him the story.

Very nice rebuttal of a straw man fallacy.

 

[Piedone]

edited

 

[Piedone]

Okay, you beg to disagree, permission granted. I'm a proponent of free speech anyway, so whatever.

Your post makes no sense to me because I made a post in here explaining my position and you responded to the post where I didn't explain anything. I don't know if you are giving me a boxing analogy or a 1919 Black Sox analogy? Nevertheless, neither one pertains to the Confederacy because they didn't do so well and should have, IMO. My philosophy has nothing to do with the corruptness of the high command of the Confederacy or its cheerleaders, and everything to do with war theory.

I specifically said the Confederates "could" have won or "should" have lasted way longer than four years, but they underperformed and bailed quite early, especially for an army who was dug in(fortified). See post: #81. Have you served in infantry or on a operational level? It doesn't mean everything, but it gives a better perspective on how ground wars are/were conducted(no matter the era) than reading from a book. The problem with war theory on the internet is that it is spouted out by bloggers that attribute victory to superior numbers and resources without any qualms, but there are other areas that should be covered and I noticed that are never covered because to be candid, I don't think they know anything about it.

It is just easier for people to just to attribute Union victory to superior numbers and resources and say that the Confederates were this formidable army and were outmatched at every turn and gave it the old college try and fought to the bitter end but just were overwhelmed. Nonsense. War theory 101 states that if an army goes on the offense they require a 2:1 advantage, even though the Union hardly had that advantage in a lot of battles. There were contemporary armies who were outgunned, outmanned, out resourced and were literally almost "bombed" into oblivion and lasted way longer than the Confederacy. Can you or anyone else explain that phenomenon? According to logic on this board, we would have to say that the NVA(north Vietnamese army) and the Mujahideen(insurgents in Afghanistan) were better soldiers than the Confederacy? Both were were outmanned, out resourced out supplied and lacked the technology just like the Confederacy and lasted way longer.

After you read post #81 you should be able to understand my position a little better, perhaps even to the point that you will set aside your traditionally views on war theory and yes, you will be able to make a comparison of contemporary wars to old-fashioned wars, that is if you are imaginative and can get passed your perfunctory reading and liberal consensus on how wars are won or lost? I'm telling you and whomever else reads this post that the Confederates could have won that war or could have at least lasted more than four lousy years.

Yaaawwwnnn.

Out of my "perfunctory reading" and spinelessly following a "liberal consensus" I´d like to share my ideas
(and do sincerely hope that they are not too provoking):

1) The fact alone that a lot of people are contributing and debating here should be a sign that more than only a few people are somehow impressed by the "confederate performance" - as this forum would probably decease very early if we all were of the same opinion.

2) People who are impressed with the "confederate performance" are not inevitably disdaining the performance of the Union. I (eg.) am readily embracing Lincoln´s political wisdom, Grant´s clever maneuvering, the fighting spirit of the AoP, the immense organisational accomplishments of the Union etc.pp.

3) To prevent inflating this post I´d just like to bear upon the points you introduced:

a) the Confederates being "fortified":
In a territory that vast you can of course fortify positions but you´ll have to leave them as soon as you are flanked - especially when armies are depending on their railroad connections (as they were). Johnston tried this tactic and it never worked out - to stop the Union advance he HAD to attack somewhen / somewhere - and then he should better be **** sure about success because his attacking troops obviously wouldn´t have any numerical superiority.

b) the Union always in the offensive (without having a 2:1 superiority)
Well, having understood a) Lee always tried to act offensively himself - the Union could have also used decidedly defensive tactics (which they did at Gettysburg to their benefit).

c) contemporary armies bombed into oblivion but fighting longer than the Confederates
I am a bit unsure.
Do you mean contemporary armies of the age of the Civil War? All of the wars of the 19th century were decisively shorter than the Civil War. If you should allude to today´s armies: what armies do you have in mind?

d) Mujaheddin / NVA lasted longer
Well...they waged a guerilla war - something Lee declined (which you obviously know).

But I don´t think that this anyway would have been an option:
The motivation of people to fight on the side of the Confederates seems a bit ambiguous to me (they fought for slavery, resentment to the North because of being morally reproached [regardless if WE regard that reproach as justified...THEY did probably not...], out of enthusiasm, war fever, Dixie patriotism, misled by propaganda....).
And I am pretty sure that many of them still shared a feeling of affiliation to the US somewhere in the back of their minds.
Those were definitely not crazy Vietcong people - if the Confederacy wouldn´t have harvested some laurels (Lee´s business) she would have collapsed even earlier I think.

And they (NVA/Mujaheddin) were not dependent on only a few denser populated regions / cities.
What was the Confederacy worth without Atlanta, Memphis, New Orleans, Richmond?
It was possible to reach the suburbs of Richmond and Atlanta in a tad more than 3 to 4 months [something Grant / Sherman proved in 1864] - but it took three years in reality to achieve it (and not because the Union wasn´t trying...- but please remember, I do not want to tell you that the Union blundered or didn´t fight well....).