Or Did the United States Win

[QUOTE="leftyhunter, post: 1547003, member: 4725"]Most of the battles the Confederacy was on the defensive. Of the major Confederate offensives in the border states and Northern states the Confederates failed. Has pointed out in the previous thread the Union Army had in most battles had a manpower superiority ratio of 1.86 to one. Has it has been pointed out numerous times the Confederacy lost territory each and every year of the war. Also in very few cases was the Confederacy able to retake lost territory.
The only examples that I can think of is Galveston, Texas which was negated by the loss of Vicksburg. Parts of Eastern Tennesse were taken back from General Burnside by General Breckenridge. Plymouth, North Carolina which was only a minor port .
Neither of the above Union loss's was serious for the Union.
Also has pointed out numerous times Holding out isn't winning.
Leftyhunter

Most of the battles were marked by savage Confederate attacks, even a counter attack is an offensive attack. With a combination of offense and defense and with all its manpower it still took the Federals 4 years to advance approximately 100 miles in Virginia.

We seem to agree on one point that the Confederate greatest challenge was to defend a vast territory with inferior numbers, all the Federals had to do was continually open new fronts and force the Confederates to spread out their limited manpower to defend them or often abandon them to the enemy altogether.[/QUOTE]
The Civil War was more then just the fight to capture Richmond. Again the Union had at best only a two to one manpower advantage. It had to capture a large land mass. The U.S. Army had less then sixteen thousand men spread out over the West when the war began. The Union Armt had a very significant counterinsurgency operations it had to undertake.
A four year victory is quite reasonable.
Leftyhunter
 
By your logic, the average Confederate soldier must have been a "superman" for fighting on for so long with the obvious disadvantages presented before him.
See my most recent post about that. By @CSA Today logic the Angolans of the UNITA movement and the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka are far tougher and pugnacious then the Confederacy.

Leftyhunter
 
Most of the battles were marked by savage Confederate attacks, even a counter attack is an offensive attack. With a combination of offense and defense and with all its manpower it still took the Federals 4 years to advance approximately 100 miles in Virginia.

We seem to agree on one point that the Confederate greatest challenge was to defend a vast territory with inferior numbers, all the Federals had to do was continually open new fronts and force the Confederates to spread out their limited manpower to defend them or often abandon them to the enemy altogether.
The Civil War was more then just the fight to capture Richmond. Again the Union had at best only a two to one manpower advantage. It had to capture a large land mass. The U.S. Army had less then sixteen thousand men spread out over the West when the war began. The Union Armt had a very significant counterinsurgency operations it had to undertake.
A four year victory is quite reasonable.
Leftyhunter[/QUOTE]

To capture an enemy capital only 100 miles away defended by an undermanned army? Pathetic! I won't go as far as you, but the Confederate army did have a manpower problem given the size of the opposing army,
 
The Civil War was more then just the fight to capture Richmond. Again the Union had at best only a two to one manpower advantage. It had to capture a large land mass. The U.S. Army had less then sixteen thousand men spread out over the West when the war began. The Union Armt had a very significant counterinsurgency operations it had to undertake.
A four year victory is quite reasonable.
Leftyhunter

To capture an enemy capital only 100 miles away defended by an undermanned army? Pathetic! I won't go as far as you, but the Confederate army did have a manpower problem given the size of the opposing army,[/QUOTE]
In a street fight or a war a victory is a victory. There are no medals given out to loosers.
Leftyhunter
 
To capture an enemy capital only 100 miles away defended by an undermanned army? Pathetic! I won't go as far as you, but the Confederate army did have a manpower problem given the size of the opposing army,
In a street fight or a war a victory is a victory. There are no medals given out to loosers.
Leftyhunter[/QUOTE]

And if the Confederates had been up against a first class fighting force, one not completely dependent on manpower and war-making materiel superiority, victory would have come far sooner.
 
In a street fight or a war a victory is a victory. There are no medals given out to loosers.
Leftyhunter

And if the Confederates had been up against a first class fighting force, one not completely dependent on manpower and war-making materiel superiority, victory would have come far sooner.[/QUOTE]
If all of the South supported the Confederacy the Confederacy might of won. However enslaving forty pecent of ones population is not a great way of ensuring popular support.
Leftyhunter
 
Maybe Angolans and Sri Lankans are just tougher more detemined people then Confederates. As you comnand sir.
Leftyhunter

I commend the Tamils and Angolans in their struggle against their enemies. In all fairness though, the Confederates were up against superior manpower numbers and war materiel, not toughness so I'm not sure a valid comparison can be made between Tamils, Angolans, and Confederates.
 
And if the Confederates had been up against a first class fighting force, one not completely dependent on manpower and war-making materiel superiority, victory would have come far sooner.
If all of the South supported the Confederacy the Confederacy might of won. However enslaving forty pecent of ones population is not a great way of ensuring popular support.
Leftyhunter[/QUOTE]
Given this lack of popular support for slavery, can we now agree that the war was instead a war in defense of Confederate independence?
 
If all of the South supported the Confederacy the Confederacy might of won. However enslaving forty pecent of ones population is not a great way of ensuring popular support.
Leftyhunter
Given this lack of popular support for slavery, can we now agree that the war was instead a war in defense of Confederate independence?[/QUOTE]
No sir! The war was fought based on the very articulate documents known as the Ordinances of Secession.
Leftyhunter
 
Given this lack of popular support for slavery, can we now agree that the war was instead a war in defense of Confederate independence?
No sir! The war was fought based on the very articulate documents known as the Ordinances of Secession.
Leftyhunter[/QUOTE]

The South Carolina Ordinance of Secession is of special interest to me since one of my gg uncles – James Henry Carlisle was one of the signers. I have a framed replica copy hanging on the wall.

AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of South Carolina and other States united with her under the compact entitled "The Constitution of the United States of America."
y.y We, the people of the State of South Carolina, in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the ordinance adopted by us in convention on the twenty-third day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly of this State ratifying amendments of the said Constitution, are hereby repealed; and that the union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name of the "United States of America," is hereby dissolved.
Done at Charleston the twentieth day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty.



 
No sir! The war was fought based on the very articulate documents known as the Ordinances of Secession.
Leftyhunter

The South Carolina Ordinance of Secession is of special interest to me since one of my gg uncles – James Henry Carlisle was one of the signers. I have a framed replica copy hanging on the wall.

AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of South Carolina and other States united with her under the compact entitled "The Constitution of the United States of America."
y.y We, the people of the State of South Carolina, in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the ordinance adopted by us in convention on the twenty-third day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly of this State ratifying amendments of the said Constitution, are hereby repealed; and that the union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name of the "United States of America," is hereby dissolved.
Done at Charleston the twentieth day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty.



[/QUOTE]
The Ordinances of Secession from Mississippi and Texas are better articulated. No offense to your ancestor.
If South Carolina immediately emancipated the slaves and granted them full and complete civil rights then yes there would be much more popular support in South Carolina for the Confederacy. Alas it was not to be.
Leftyhunter
 
The war took four years because the United States took that long to utilize their preponderance of strength on the inland river system and in the west generally.
It took Sherman about 4 months to move from Chattanooga and deprive the Confederacy of Atlanta. After his army captured Atlanta the Confederates did not make a serious attempt to stop Sherman until he got to North Carolina.
This demonstrates how disparate the resources were in the west and how short the war could have been if that disparity had been aggressively utilized without hesitation.
How long in 1860s would it take the average fit person to travel say five miles ,well supplied,with shoes. The road would be typical dirt road ..Then place that same person ,not feed,shoeless,or shoes with no soles,supplies at a medium if any,Having to be moving constanly,little if any rest.Is there any doubt that the former person would out perform the latter in battle that could last for hours. One more medical is void,so the latter is suffering from any number of diseases. And they still fought!
 
Back
Top