When was the war lost?

[damYankee]

I asked this question in another thread and thought it would be a good question for it's own OP.

When did the situation facing the South come to that point when surrender and the salvage of as much of it's national treasure, private property and blood of it's youth outweighed any hopes of defeating the North?

 

[JerryD]

Yet if the British thought so highly of the Confederacy they never recognized it. The British had mitary observers on both sides so they knew who was winning or loosing.
A generaly accepted criteria of recognizing a given country is its government can control its people and territory. The Confederacy could not protect its coastline or break the Union naval blockade.
Of course there are exceptions to that rule when it comes to one nation to another ( it is well after the ACW) but even with that in mind no nation bothered to recognize the Confederacy.
Leftyhunter

We are getting off topic, but the Brits had legit reasons for not recognizing the CSA that went beyond whether they thought it would win or not. They knew that if they recognized the CSA, and the USA felt that that Great Britain had been decisive in making the USA lose the war, then the USA would be forever an enemy of Great Britain, and Great Britain wanted to avoid that. Far better for the CSA to win its independence without British help. They thought the CSA might survive the war, but they knew the USA would. Why **** off the USA unnecessarily if the CSA may not even survive? They wanted to be friends to both if both survived the war, but did not wish to put US relationship at risk for a country that might not even survive. Neutrality made much more sense for them, no matter who won the war.

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

I asked this question in another thread and thought it would be a good question for it's own OP.

When did the situation facing the South come to that point when surrender and the salvage of as much of it's national treasure, private property and blood of it's youth outweighed any hopes of defeating the North?

In my opinion it was when Sherman had roamed freely through Georgia, taking Savannah, while Grant had Lee under control in Virginia. Some answers will likely go all the way back to Gettysburg, though.

 

[gary]

Fort Donelson. KY and TN lost and the heartland exposed. No one except Grant realized the implication and strategically, the Confederates were at a disadvantage.

From a naval perspective, the loss off New Orleans to Farragut. It proved that the Union enjoyed naval superiority and that the Confederacy was impotent in holding its ports (but remember Charleston which didn't fall unti 1865).

 

[leftyhunter]

We are getting off topic, but the Brits had legit reasons for not recognizing the CSA that went beyond whether they thought it would win or not. They knew that if they recognized the CSA, and the USA felt that that Great Britain had been decisive in making the USA lose the war, then the USA would be forever an enemy of Great Britain, and Great Britain wanted to avoid that. Far better for the CSA to win its independence without British help. They thought the CSA might survive the war, but they knew the USA would. Why **** off the USA unnecessarily if the CSA may not even survive? They wanted to be friends to both if both survived the war, but did not wish to put US relationship at risk for a country that might not even survive. Neutrality made much more sense for them, no matter who won the war.

Yes but if the Confederacy was going to win it would require formal diplomatic recognition. Even the Colonial Rebels received formal diplomatic recognition from France,Spain and the Netherlands before the battle of Yorktown.
The Confederacy needed formal diplomatic recognition to openly buy arms vs what happened during the Laurd Ram Affair.
Leftyhunter

 

[Old Soldier]

Certainly there were members of Parliament and the gentry who advocated for recognition, mediation, or even intervention at various times during the war, for their own reasons, but as you say the Government insisted on neutrality and most of the population supported the USA. And of course many merchants and ship builders were eager to do business with the CSA. And its well known that the Times was very pro-CSA in its reporting. The general view of the government up until the fall of Savannah was that CSA victory was inevitable, and when the USA finally recognized that fact then Great Britain would offer to help mediate on the basis of separation. They were repeatedly told by CSA reps that the CSA would never consent to re-unification and would carry on the war no matter the cost, and the Brits believed them. From what I have read they were shocked when the CSA just kind of melted away in the course of just a few months.

Am I off?

Actually, it was not the Government. Britain was declared Neutral by Royal Proclamation - the monarch (Queen Victoria) and the Privvy Council (Prime Minister Lord Palmerston and Foreign Secretary Lord John Russel). In doing that, it ensured it took hours instead of weeks of Parliamentry debate since it did not require a vote in Parliament. It was followed by most European countries including France and Prussia. To prove the point, the policy was discussed and debated in Parliament, with the House of Lords and House of Commons engaging in debates throughout May and June 1861 regarding the policy's implications, particularly on privateering.

British proclamation of neutrality in the American Civil War - Wikisource, the free online library

en.wikisource.org

In reality, it was the Prince Consort - seriously ill Prince Albert - who informally advised the Queen, although taking no part in formatting the proclamation, ensuring we did not get involved. Also, even though he was on his last legs, he ensured the Trent Affair in November was sorted within HOURS, revising Britain's demands personally, with approval of Foreign Secretary Lord John Russel, giving Lincoln a reason for settling without losing face. He died of typhoid fever a few weeks later. Queen Victoria was so overcome, she withdrew from public life and wore black until she died in 1901.

 

[Old Soldier]

In my opinion it was when Sherman had roamed freely through Georgia, taking Savannah, while Grant had Lee under control in Virginia. Some answers will likely go all the way back to Gettysburg, though.

It was almost certainly that campaign which convinced many Southerners that they were going to lose. It cut the Confederacy in two. Gettysburg was not such an omen as it took place well outside the Confederacy - 90 miles North of Washington DC(!) - although it may well have sown seeds of doubt in some.

 

[Wadersmith]

I've seen many argue the fall of New Orleans was the beginning of the end which I think has some backing.
Personally, I think it's for sure over whenever Bragg is put in command of anything besides the Louisiana Militia or troop training in Florida

 

[Bruce Allardice]

History is full of examples of weaker powers defeating stronger ones, particularly due to a collapse on the stronger side of the willingness to keep fighting. The South didn't need to win; it just needed to avoid losing until the North decided that victory would not be worth the cost.

Give me ONE contemporary example of a European-based nation that won a war in the 19th century, outnumbered like the south was.
I count 24 such wars, and in every one, the side that was outnumbered lost.

 

[Old Soldier]

Yes but if the Confederacy was going to win it would require formal diplomatic recognition. Even the Colonial Rebels received formal diplomatic recognition from France,Spain and the Netherlands before the battle of Yorktown.
The Confederacy needed formal diplomatic recognition to openly buy arms vs what happened during the Laurd Ram Affair.
Leftyhunter

The Laird Rams were an illegal build under the terms of neutrality. They tried the same in France too. The story ran that they were ordered for the 'Egyptian Navy' from both countries and were very obviously 'turret rams'. John Laird, shipbuilder in Liverpool was a Confederate supporter as were the two shipbuilders in France. Once this deception was revealed by US investigations, both countries stepped in. The two 'Laird rams' were brought under Royal Navy control before completion and the two French ships in a more advanced state of construction were sold on to Prussia and Denmark. (Both at war at the time) Denmark sold theirs onto the Confederacy and was commissioned as CSS Stonewall in 1865. She was surrendered in Spain and decommissioned then given to the USA, who sold her on again to Japan.

Note: The two RN ships were commissioned later and very quickly positioned as harbour guardships in Bermuda and Hong Kong and were struck off c 1901. Prussia's SMS Prinz Adalbert lasted just five years as a harbour guardship before being struck off . The one sold to Japan was renamed Kōtetsu and was stricken in 1888.

The other raiders were built or bought as merchant ships (which was not illegal) and were armed, provisioned, crewed and commissioned in Spanish territory (uninhabited Azores and Madeira Islands)

 

[JeffBrooks]

Give me ONE contemporary example of a European-based nation that won a war in the 19th century, outnumbered like the south was.
I count 24 such wars, and in every one, the side that was outnumbered lost.

That wouldn't be a proper analogy, since no European country except Russia came close to the geographic size of the Confederacy and therefore didn't have the strategic option of trading space for time.

Speaking more generally, one could cite conflicts as diverse as the Greco-Persian Wars, the Roman attempts to conquer Germania, the Mongol attempts to conquer Japan, the Revolutionary War, the Italo-Ethiopian War of 1895, the Vietnam War, the conflicts in Afghanistan waged by both Russia and the United States, and countless others. The point is that the strongest side doesn't necessarily win, since the political will to keep paying the price necessary to achieve victory may break. Sun Tzu pointed out that the true objective in war is not to destroy enemy armies or capture enemy territory, but to destroy the enemy's will to fight.

 

[leftyhunter]

The Laird Rams were an illegal build under the terms of neutrality. They tried the same in France too. The story ran that they were ordered for the 'Egyptian Navy' from both countries and were very obviously 'turret rams'. John Laird, shipbuilder in Liverpool was a Confederate supporter as were the two shipbuilders in France. Once this deception was revealed by US investigations, both countries stepped in. The two 'Laird rams' were brought under Royal Navy control before completion and the two French ships in a more advanced state of construction were sold on to Prussia and Denmark. (Both at war at the time) Denmark sold theirs onto the Confederacy and was commissioned as CSS Stonewall in 1865. She was surrendered in Spain and decommissioned then given to the USA, who sold her on again to Japan.

Note: The two RN ships were commissioned later and very quickly positioned as harbour guardships in Bermuda and Hong Kong and were struck off c 1901. Prussia's SMS Prinz Adalbert lasted just five years as a harbour guardship before being struck off . The one sold to Japan was renamed Kōtetsu and was stricken in 1888.

The other raiders were built or bought as merchant ships (which was not illegal) and were armed, provisioned, crewed and commissioned in Spanish territory (uninhabited Azores and Madeira Islands)

Yes I know that's why diplomatic recognition was critical for the Confederacy. If Great Britain recognized the Confederacy they could then legally sell has many arms as they wanted to the Confederacy. Davis knew diplomatic recognition was critical for the Confederacy to achieve independence but it was a bridge to far.
Leftyhunter

 

[JerryD]

Give me ONE contemporary example of a European-based nation that won a war in the 19th century, outnumbered like the south was.
I count 24 such wars, and in every one, the side that was outnumbered lost.

Russo-Japanese War.

 

[JerryD]

Yes I know that's why diplomatic recognition was critical for the Confederacy. If Great Britain recognized the Confederacy they could then legally sell has many arms as they wanted to the Confederacy. Davis knew diplomatic recognition was critical for the Confederacy to achieve independence but it was a bridge to far.
Leftyhunter

Recognition does not necessarily mean that Great Britain would have stopped being a neutral. In fact, that was one of the arguments against recognition in Great Britain; that it would not effectively do anything. It would not bring in one more bushel of cotton, nor would it change the policy of neutrality. The policy prohibiting shipbuilding applied to both the USA and the CSA. Remember, Great Britain did recognize the USA, but it was still neutral in the conflict and would not build warships for the USA, at least not legally.

 

[G Low]

I believe that when King Cotton was dethroned, and cotton was neither sellable or cultivated!! This was the beginning of the end so to speak. If the south could have kept on trading goods, no telling how long it would have lasted. He** the south could have imported some Hessions to help fight off the Yankees

 

[OpnCoronet]

To me the War was ending starting in June to July of 1864. June 14 Grant crosses the James River and locks the Army of Northern Virginia around Richmond. After Hood takes over he fails at the July 20 Battle of Peachtree Creek. This locks the Confederate army in Atlanta and it is probably only time until it falls.

I think this is approximately, when a majority of the avg. citizens of the Confederacy could see the writing on the wall, i.e., approx. mid July to Sept. 1864.

When looked back upon, after the events, the seemingly slow but inexorable advances of Grant and Sherman, acquired the appearance of inevitability to the ordinary citizens of the South who read the newspapers or letters of family members in the military.

After 3 yrs of agonizing war, its end would come with a rush, with Grant crossing the James besieging of Petersburg and the taking of Atlanta(and its burning).

 

[leftyhunter]

Recognition does not necessarily mean that Great Britain would have stopped being a neutral. In fact, that was one of the arguments against recognition in Great Britain; that it would not effectively do anything. It would not bring in one more bushel of cotton, nor would it change the policy of neutrality. The policy prohibiting shipbuilding applied to both the USA and the CSA. Remember, Great Britain did recognize the USA, but it was still neutral in the conflict and would not build warships for the USA, at least not legally.

Actually Great Britan has been a major arms exporter for a long time even before the ACW. Great Britain has even sold arms to both sides in a conflict if it has diplomatic recognition of both sides. If thecUK recognized the Confederacy then it could openly sell arms to the Confederacy with out worrying about the Neutrality Act. There is a reason Davis at least made an effort to gain diplomatic recognition from key countries.
Leftyhunter

 

[uaskme]

I believe that when King Cotton was dethroned, and cotton was neither sellable or cultivated!! This was the beginning of the end so to speak. If the south could have kept on trading goods, no telling how long it would have lasted. He** the south could have imported some Hessions to help fight off the Yankees

They should have shipped ever bale of cotton they produced in1860 somewhere that was neutral. Warehoused it, cotton wasn't a commodity that had an expiration date. Then fed it into the system. England operated at a 50% deficient during the last years of the war, Confederacy would definitely lasted longer. If they had of kept Sherman out of ATL until after the 64' election, anything could have happened.

 

[Old Soldier]

Yes I know that's why diplomatic recognition was critical for the Confederacy. If Great Britain recognized the Confederacy they could then legally sell has many arms as they wanted to the Confederacy. Davis knew diplomatic recognition was critical for the Confederacy to achieve independence but it was a bridge to far.
Leftyhunter

Arms were sold to the Confederacy - as private contracts to private manufacturers, NOT by the government factory and not subject to any government requirements or tests save civilian barrel proofs as per the terms of neutrality. This included rifles (P53) and cannon (Whitworth and Blakey), This provision was open to BOTH sides, the US also buying in P53s and foreign arms until 1863 when home production through Springfield was up to speed.

No issue British arms were sold from reserve either although Prussia, France and Austro-Hungary did sell obsolete or obsolescent arms from their reserve stock. A fire at the Tower of London in 1841 coupled with the Crimean War followed by the Indian Mutiny, plus demand for arms supply to the Rifle Volunteers (1859) and to 'colonies' meant there were few obsolete or obsolescent arms in Britain

It was done in the same way as the Brits buying arms from US manufacturers in WW1 and WW2 before America joined the war. The lack of the rather strict government standards is the reason why most of the arms supplied were of poorer quality than issue arms, noteably in interchangability.

BTW - NONE were 'given' to either side. They were bought. No money = no guns.

 

[CW Buff]

I asked this question in another thread and thought it would be a good question for it's own OP.

When did the situation facing the South come to that point when surrender and the salvage of as much of it's national treasure, private property and blood of it's youth outweighed any hopes of defeating the North?

The Confederacy didn't have to decisively defeat the Union (though that might have done it, depending on timing and extent; capturing Burgoyne's army in NY didn't end the American Revolution), they just had to outlast the Union. I think the last hope for that ended when Sherman captured Atlanta and Lincoln was reelected. I think that election was crucial. Most folks in the know thought the election was in serious jeopardy, and many thought it was actually lost, until the fall of Atlanta.

The capture of Mobil Bay could also have eventually had a similar effect, but its importance was not immediately apparent to the northern public because Mobil itself remained in Confederate hands. The question would be if the strategic importance of capturing the Mobil forts (shutting down the bay, and keeping Maury from reinforcing Hood) would have been realized by, or could have been impressed upon, the Union public prior to the election (without Atlanta).

I think the loss of the election could have had immediate consequences, regardless of the March 1865 inauguration. Mac's position was he would abandon emancipation. That introduces the possibility of a negotiated peace. It's hard to see how even the prospect of peace negotiations would not negatively impact morale in the Union Army. How do you keep men fighting and putting their lives on the line with the possibility of peace negotiations in the air (although Union soldiers were amazingly more committed than the public, but how much does it take)? I believe they were also looking for more recruits/conscripts at the time (much more difficult/more demoralizing w/o Atlanta). And negotiations don't have to conclude successfully, resumption after a ceasefire becomes difficult in a costly war that seems to be endlessly grinding on. Lincoln was certainly concerned, with his plan to enlist Mac's help to maintain the war effort from election to inauguration (an unlikely scenario), and the blind memorandum (to keep it secret until after the election). And he later kept actual peace talks a secret during the pursuit of the Thirteenth Amendment. Emancipation was a major issue and many War Democrats grudgingly went along with it only as a means of preserving the Union. I would think some numbers of Republicans felt similarly (of David Wilmot's like). Mac wins the election, the Confederates act receptive, confusion sets in (I think Mac's idea was pretty unworkable anyway, what assurances can/do you require before entering a ceasefire and negotiations?), and all bets are off.

 

[leftyhunter]

Arms were sold to the Confederacy - as private contracts to private manufacturers, NOT by the government factory and not subject to any government requirements or tests save civilian barrel proofs as per the terms of neutrality. This included rifles (P53) and cannon (Whitworth and Blakey), This provision was open to BOTH sides, the US also buying in P53s and foreign arms until 1863 when home production through Springfield was up to speed.

No issue British arms were sold from reserve either although Prussia, France and Austro-Hungary did sell obsolete or obsolescent arms from their reserve stock. A fire at the Tower of London in 1841 coupled with the Crimean War followed by the Indian Mutiny, plus demand for arms supply to the Rifle Volunteers (1859) and to 'colonies' meant there were few obsolete or obsolescent arms in Britain

It was done in the same way as the Brits buying arms from US manufacturers in WW1 and WW2 before America joined the war. The lack of the rather strict government standards is the reason why most of the arms supplied were of poorer quality than issue arms, noteably in interchangability.

BTW - NONE were 'given' to either side. They were bought. No money = no guns.

I didn't imply that the British gave military aid during the ACW only that if the British would of had formal diplomatic recognition of the Confederacy they could sell freely to the Confederacy.
Ledtyhunter