The Never-Ending Question

[matthew mckeon]

Lee was head and shoulders above the rest. Alone out of the southern leadership he seemed to grasp exactly what it would take to defeat the North: a total and ruthless commitment of southern manpower and resources, to offset the northern numerical advantage. That everything had to be subordinated to the war effort. He understood that the war was not just a matter of military victories, but of political and social will.

But the Confederacy was not able to earn enough of that will. Black southerners generally fought for the Union. Many white southerners opposed the Confederate cause. Those who initially supported the war grew disenchanted with the Confederate leadership when the war went badly. Many felt the cost of the war was being borne by the small farmer, while the wealthy planter contributed little or nothing.

There were plenty of committed Confederates who gave everything to win their bid for independence. But the southerners, black and white, who opted for the Union provided the margin of victory.

 

[thomas aagaard]

But shouldn't the Union army been better prepared ? After all the Union had a standing regular (albeit not a large one) army and the Confederacy had to organize, train, and equip one. I feel at the start of the war the Confederacy did have an advantage as to military leadership.

It was tiny. .. even Denmark have a larger army in 1860... and Prussia had one something like 20 timers larger...

The regular army didn't have as much as a single company of infantry east of the Mississippi.
Some units was betrayed in Texas and most where in positions on the frontier where they could not just leave until replaced by volunteers.

Yes had the union had 15.000 regulars in Washington in the summer of 61, things might very well have gone differently... but they only had a battalion at First Manassas... and it was not at full strength.

 

[Pat Answer]

But shouldn't the Union army been better prepared ? After all the Union had a standing regular (albeit not a large one) army and the Confederacy had to organize, train, and equip one. I feel at the start of the war the Confederacy did have an advantage as to military leadership.

Respectfully,

William

I was under the impression that both sides had to pretty much start from scratch regarding organization, training, and equipment.

 

[leftyhunter]

I was under the impression that both sides had to pretty much start from scratch regarding organization, training, and equipment.

I suppose one could say that. On the other hand the Union has better RR's its own weapons factories and its farmers are far more efficient at growing food. In fact in the middle of the CW the Union can export wheat to Western Europe which has a shortage due to drought in the Ukraine. In addition the CSA can't blockade Union ports and the Union can and did freely import weaponry from Western Europe.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Resources alone mean nothing. Manpower can be overcome with effective strategies. The navy can not occupy land mass.
In the end the North's ability to maintain a will to win despite early failures allowed them to harness these resources into a cooperative effort.

I can agree with most of your post but in the context of mid 19th century military science how does one protect a land mass the size of Western Europe while outnumbered 2 to 1 and in addition said territory has major rivers that either side can use? To add to the complexity a large portion of said territory is enslaved and not all that happy about it?
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

The Never-Ending Question

John Frelling makes a great point in that the CW would be won or lost depending on the Confederate ability to utilize the border states. Slavery was legal in the border states and two of them Md (RR manufacturing plants) and Mo (shipyards to produce ironclad boats) proved vital in the Union CW war effort. Ky had 187k men who sat on the porch vs 25k men in the CSA vs 50k in the Union Army. Ky was a vital base for the Union Army to invade Tn and while their where CSA guerrillas in Ky their just was not enough to hinder Union logistics.
Leftyhunter

 

[W. Richardson]

I was under the impression that both sides had to pretty much start from scratch regarding organization, training, and equipment.

IIRC the Union had roughly 12,000 to 16,000 soldiers at the start of the war. The biggest majority were stationed west of the mississippi. Though compared to other armies it was small, yet still..........It was more than the South had as far as a regular army. Both pretty much started from scratch, the Union by choice, the South by necessity.

Respectfully,

William

 

[Elennsar]

Not sure what the choice was, unless you're talking prewar.

 

[jgoodguy]

Lee was head and shoulders above the rest. Alone out of the southern leadership he seemed to grasp exactly what it would take to defeat the North: a total and ruthless commitment of southern manpower and resources, to offset the northern numerical advantage. That everything had to be subordinated to the war effort. He understood that the war was not just a matter of military victories, but of political and social will.

But the Confederacy was not able to earn enough of that will. Black southerners generally fought for the Union. Many white southerners opposed the Confederate cause. Those who initially supported the war grew disenchanted with the Confederate leadership when the war went badly. Many felt the cost of the war was being borne by the small farmer, while the wealthy planter contributed little or nothing.

There were plenty of committed Confederates who gave everything to win their bid for independence. But the southerners, black and white, who opted for the Union provided the margin of victory.

IMHO slave owners in general wanted their slaves more than the Confederate nation.

 

[W. Richardson]

Better prepared how, though? When the war officially started, the Confederacy already had tens of thousands of men under arms, while most of the 16,000 man Union Army was still west of the Mississippi.

How many of those 10,000 Confederate troops were well trained regular army ?

The 16,000 Union troops were Regular Army, and for the most part well trained.

The distribution of the Union Army, was as you stated mostly west of the Mississippi, that does not take away from their quality, only from their availability. The Union Army as I stated was better prepared soldier wise, but not better located due to the failure of Union command.

Respectfully,

William

 

[rpkennedy]

I

How many of those 10,000 Confederate troops were well trained regular army ?

The 16,000 Union troops were Regular Army, and for the most part well trained.

The distribution of the Union Army, was as you stated mostly west of the Mississippi, that does not take away from their quality, only from their availability. The Union Army as I stated was better prepared soldier wise, but not better located due to the failure of Union command.

Respectfully,

William

It was less Union failure than the circumstances being what they were in 1861. As was pointed out, those men couldn't just up and leave their posts until they could be relieved.

R

 

[thomas aagaard]

As I mentioned earlier the union only had one 8 company battalion in the army at First Manassas... It did a good job on covering the retreat/rout, but it was simply to small to effect the outcome. By the time the union was able to gather a larger force of regulars the armies had become so large that they where still to few to have a clear influence on a battle.

183 of the 198 companies(all branches) in the army were west of the Mississippi River.
37 was lost in Texas to the treason of General Twiggs and most of the rest could not be moved until replaced. There is no "failure of command" here.
Also remember that until the end of 1860 John B. Floyd was Secretary of war... I haven't studies exactly how much he did to aid the south during his last months in office, but clearly he did nothing to help the union get ready for war.

And until Lincoln took office nothing could really be done... so it is not until after the war actually starts that steps could be taken.

another thing to remember is that the men might have been well trained as soldiers and at the company level, but thye where not trained at the battalion level and higher up... Since it was pretty rare for more than one or two companies to be posted at the same location.

Now the decision by Scott to keep em together and not use them as a cadre of drill instructors at Union camps... well that can be questioned. (I think they could have been used way better by splitting them up, as I mentioned in another topic just a few days ago)

 

[W. Richardson]

I


It was less Union failure than the circumstances being what they were in 1861. As was pointed out, those men couldn't just up and leave their posts until they could be relieved.

R

I agree they could not just up and leave their post without being relieved. However that does not take away from the fact, the Union had a standing, trained, experienced army and the South did not. The South had to raise an army and train it.

How the Union used their army is another question but does not take away from the fact they had one and it was trained and experienced, and as was stated...........Spread out.

Respectfully,

William

 

[rpkennedy]

I agree they could not just up and leave their post without being relieved. However that does not take away from the fact, the Union had a standing, trained, experienced army and the South did not. The South had to raise an army and train it.

How the Union used their army is another question but does not take away from the fact they had one and it was trained and experienced, and as was stated...........Spread out.

Respectfully,

William

They may have been trained but the majority of the men were not experienced in combat. At best, they might've been shot at by the occasional Indian raid but that would've been about it.

R

 

[nitrofd]

The South's militia started to better organize after the first votes of succession so they had a bit of a head start on the union forces.how well they did , who knows but they did get the jump on the north.

 

[huskerblitz]

IIRC the Union had roughly 12,000 to 16,000 soldiers at the start of the war. The biggest majority were stationed west of the mississippi. Though compared to other armies it was small, yet still..........It was more than the South had as far as a regular army. Both pretty much started from scratch, the Union by choice, the South by necessity.

Respectfully,

William

To add to this...The US didn't need that large of an army prior to the outbreak of war. We had two neighbors to worry about (Canada and Mexico) and neither were a threat really. Certainly not like Europe where you had dozens of potential threats in a relatively short distance.

 

[JerseyBart]

The south lost because Lincoln wasn't going to quit until the south quit. He was also a lot closer in proximity to the south than say, England was to the colonies. The colonies waited England out because they could. Evemtually, distance + losing resources, men, money and interest = go ahead be your own country. That problem did not exist to Lincoln. He had the resources, men, money and interest...along with equally tough soldiers and generals.

 

[Pat Answer]

IIRC the Union had roughly 12,000 to 16,000 soldiers at the start of the war. The biggest majority were stationed west of the mississippi. Though compared to other armies it was small, yet still..........It was more than the South had as far as a regular army. Both pretty much started from scratch, the Union by choice, the South by necessity.

Respectfully,

William

I agree they could not just up and leave their post without being relieved. However that does not take away from the fact, the Union had a standing, trained, experienced army and the South did not. The South had to raise an army and train it.
How the Union used their army is another question but does not take away from the fact they had one and it was trained and experienced, and as was stated...........Spread out.
Respectfully,
William

A "standing, trained, experienced army" in relative terms that was not expecting a major war in home territory (or, as Huskerblitz notes, much of a threat to national security from anyone). Insofar as there were in fact a few US Regular companies available in 1861, I see your point. The irony, as Mr. Aagaard notes, is that these were not spread out to best advantage as training cadres for the volunteer units. They were kept together, and became a drop in a very large bucket.
But building the mass armies that actually fought the war was a task that put both sides in the same boat.

 

[W. Richardson]

To add to this...The US didn't need that large of an army prior to the outbreak of war. We had two neighbors to worry about (Canada and Mexico) and neither were a threat really. Certainly not like Europe where you had dozens of potential threats in a relatively short distance.

You are very correct !!

Respectfully,

William

 

[W. Richardson]

A "standing, trained, experienced army" in relative terms that was not expecting a major war in home territory (or, as Huskerblitz notes, much of a threat to national security from anyone). Insofar as there were in fact a few US Regular companies available in 1861, I see your point. The irony, as Mr. Aagaard notes, is that these were not spread out to best advantage as training cadres for the volunteer units. They were kept together, and became a drop in a very large bucket.
But building the mass armies that actually fought the war was a task that put both sides in the same boat.

I agree with you and you have pointed out a good point.


"The irony, as Mr. Aagaard notes, is that these were not spread out to best advantage as training cadres for the volunteer units. They were kept together, and became a drop in a very large bucket."

This is what I referred to in an early post as failure in Union command..............

Respectfully,

William