Why the Confederacy Lost

[CMWinkler]

SEPTEMBER 13, 2014 4:00 AM
Why the Confederacy Lost
Examining some issues of Civil War strategy
By Mackubin Thomas Owens

• Archive
• Latest
• RSS
• SendExpired Image Removed

Confederate soldiers captured after the Battle of Gettysburg, July 1862 (Library of Congress)

Print
Text Comments

10

Expired Image Removed​

Mackubin Thomas Owens
There is an old story, probably apocryphal, about a meeting of the Southern Historical Society in the years after the Civil War. The topic was Gettysburg — what mistakes, large or small, did the Confederates make that led to the Southern defeat? The debate was heated and furious. Tempers were at the boiling point. Finally, one of the participants turned to George Pickett of "Pickett's Charge" fame. "George," he said, "you were there. Why did we lose the battle?" to which Pickett replied, "I always thought the Yankees had something to do with it."

This anecdote reflects a historiographical debate about the Civil War in general. Was the cause of Confederate defeat external, or internal? Those who emphasize internal causes attribute the failure to breakdowns in Confederate leadership, both political and military, and Rebel errors on the battlefield. Those who stress external causes attribute this defeat to the military might of the Union, Lincoln's wartime leadership, and Union generalship.

There have always been those who emphasized internal factors in explaining why the Confederacy lost. Immediately after the war, many influential Confederates blamed southern defeat on the manifold failures of President Jefferson Davis. In the1920s, Frank Owsley blamed Confederate defeat on the doctrine of "state rights" — the alleged obstructive policies of governors that handicapped the ability of the Confederate government to mobilize men and resources for war. In 1960, David Donald offered a corollary to state rights, attributing the South's loss of the war to an "excess of democracy" — too much individualism, dissent, and criticism of the government.

More: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/387546/why-confederacy-lost-mackubin-thomas-owens

• 
  

 

[jgoodguy]

SEPTEMBER 13, 2014 4:00 AM
Why the Confederacy Lost
Examining some issues of Civil War strategy
By Mackubin Thomas Owens

• Archive
• Latest
• RSS
• SendExpired Image Removed

Confederate soldiers captured after the Battle of Gettysburg, July 1862 (Library of Congress)

Print
Text Comments

10

​

Mackubin Thomas Owens

There is an old story, probably apocryphal, about a meeting of the Southern Historical Society in the years after the Civil War. The topic was Gettysburg — what mistakes, large or small, did the Confederates make that led to the Southern defeat? The debate was heated and furious. Tempers were at the boiling point. Finally, one of the participants turned to George Pickett of "Pickett's Charge" fame. "George," he said, "you were there. Why did we lose the battle?" to which Pickett replied, "I always thought the Yankees had something to do with it."

This anecdote reflects a historiographical debate about the Civil War in general. Was the cause of Confederate defeat external, or internal? Those who emphasize internal causes attribute the failure to breakdowns in Confederate leadership, both political and military, and Rebel errors on the battlefield. Those who stress external causes attribute this defeat to the military might of the Union, Lincoln's wartime leadership, and Union generalship.

There have always been those who emphasized internal factors in explaining why the Confederacy lost. Immediately after the war, many influential Confederates blamed southern defeat on the manifold failures of President Jefferson Davis. In the1920s, Frank Owsley blamed Confederate defeat on the doctrine of "state rights" — the alleged obstructive policies of governors that handicapped the ability of the Confederate government to mobilize men and resources for war. In 1960, David Donald offered a corollary to state rights, attributing the South's loss of the war to an "excess of democracy" — too much individualism, dissent, and criticism of the government.

More: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/387546/why-confederacy-lost-mackubin-thomas-owens

IMHO the CSA could not afford errors while the Union with much greater resources and manpower could afford errors.
Then the CSA made errors, in many cases unforced errors.
That is why the South did not win independence.

In short both internal - the errors of management, governance and military.
And external the material/manpower abundance of the Union.

 

[dlofting]

Good article.....thanks for posting.

 

[leftyhunter]

IMHO the CSA could not afford errors while the Union with much greater resources and manpower could afford errors.
Then the CSA made errors, in many cases unforced errors.
That is why the South did not win independence.

In short both internal - the errors of management, governance and military.
And external the material/manpower abundance of the Union.

To which I would add that there is a considerable body of academic research in the last 25 years ago that there was quite a bit of Southern resistance to the Confederacy. Some examples would be "The South bitterly divided by Professor Williams, "The South Divided by" Professor Downing "The decisive role of guerrillas in the Civil War "by Professor Stictland "Lincolns Loyalists by Current.
Leftyhunter

 

[jgoodguy]

To which I would add that there is a considerable body of academic research in the last 25 years ago that there was quite a bit of Southern resistance to the Confederacy. Some examples would be "The South bitterly divided by Professor Williams, "The South Divided by" Professor Downing "The decisive role of guerrillas in the Civil War "by Professor Stictland "Lincolns Loyalists by Current.
Leftyhunter

I may strain a point, but I categorize resistance as political errors either a miscalculation in the decision to secede or an error in governance. I've look into Southern resistance and so far find it is less than decisive, but a leakage of critical resources that contributed to the defeat. The Union had its own resistance like the Copper Heads, but could afford the loss of resources.

More books to read.

 

[leftyhunter]

I may strain a point, but I categorize resistance as political errors either a miscalculation in the decision to secede or an error in governance. I've look into Southern resistance and so far find it is less than decisive, but a leakage of critical resources that contributed to the defeat. The Union had its own resistance like the Copper Heads, but could afford the loss of resources.

More books to read.

I agree that Southern resistance to the Confederacy was far from the only reason for its defeat. None the less when one combines Southern men in the Union Army both white and black plus guerrillas that's over 200k men . Every slave who runs away is one laborer who can not be replaced because so many young white Southern men are in the army (of either side) or are draft dodgers hiding in the bush.
Leftyhunter

 

[jgoodguy]

I agree that Southern resistance to the Confederacy was far from the only reason for its defeat. None the less when one combines Southern men in the Union Army both white and black plus guerrillas that's over 200k men . Every slave who runs away is one laborer who can not be replaced because so many young white Southern men are in the army (of either side) or are draft dodgers hiding in the bush.
Leftyhunter

A death by a thousand cuts, not one of which is fatal but when taken as a total is fatal.

 

[leftyhunter]

SEPTEMBER 13, 2014 4:00 AM
Why the Confederacy Lost
Examining some issues of Civil War strategy
By Mackubin Thomas Owens

• Archive
• Latest
• RSS
• SendExpired Image Removed

Confederate soldiers captured after the Battle of Gettysburg, July 1862 (Library of Congress)

Print
Text Comments

10

Expired Image Removed​

Mackubin Thomas Owens

There is an old story, probably apocryphal, about a meeting of the Southern Historical Society in the years after the Civil War. The topic was Gettysburg — what mistakes, large or small, did the Confederates make that led to the Southern defeat? The debate was heated and furious. Tempers were at the boiling point. Finally, one of the participants turned to George Pickett of "Pickett's Charge" fame. "George," he said, "you were there. Why did we lose the battle?" to which Pickett replied, "I always thought the Yankees had something to do with it."

This anecdote reflects a historiographical debate about the Civil War in general. Was the cause of Confederate defeat external, or internal? Those who emphasize internal causes attribute the failure to breakdowns in Confederate leadership, both political and military, and Rebel errors on the battlefield. Those who stress external causes attribute this defeat to the military might of the Union, Lincoln's wartime leadership, and Union generalship.

There have always been those who emphasized internal factors in explaining why the Confederacy lost. Immediately after the war, many influential Confederates blamed southern defeat on the manifold failures of President Jefferson Davis. In the1920s, Frank Owsley blamed Confederate defeat on the doctrine of "state rights" — the alleged obstructive policies of governors that handicapped the ability of the Confederate government to mobilize men and resources for war. In 1960, David Donald offered a corollary to state rights, attributing the South's loss of the war to an "excess of democracy" — too much individualism, dissent, and criticism of the government.

More: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/387546/why-confederacy-lost-mackubin-thomas-owens

What the author did not mention was the fact that the USN could blockade Confederate ports vs the CSN which could not. The Author did not mention that Gen. Scotts Anoconda Plan actually worked. The CSA could neither over the long term defend its ports nor blockade Union ports. Yes the CSN had success raiding commerce ships but many Union ship owners simply re registered their ships has French or British which solved the problem not to mention the raiders where eventually sunk.
Leftyhunter

 

[ole]

All of the above.

 

[favedave]

I've felt for some time that the Confederacy lost its bid for independence due to the initiation of an armed conflict at Fort Sumter. The bloodless secession of the seven Cotton states between December, 1860 and February, 1861 is very possibly the most politically adroit event in American history. Both Buchanan and Lincoln were Constitutionally bound to do nothing about peaceful political opposition. Unfortunately for the Confederacy's future, Southern leaders believed that their innate superior military skills would enable them to prevail in the war they deliberately started. Of course the widely publicized shelling of an American military base took off the Constitutional handcuffs which had prevented two presidents from responding to the gravest political crisis the nation has ever faced.

I came across an interesting comment Lincoln made in this regard during a speech he delivered when he was just beginning to campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. It was actually directed to Americans living below the Ohio River.

Will you make war upon us and kill us all?
Man for man, you are not better than we are.
And there are not so many of you as there are of us.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Cincinnati, 1859

 

[Rebforever]

I thought the Battle of Gettysburg 1863.

 

[leftyhunter]

I've felt for some time that the Confederacy lost its bid for independence due to the initiation of an armed conflict at Fort Sumter. The bloodless secession of the seven Cotton states between December, 1860 and February, 1861 is very possibly the most politically adroit event in American history. Both Buchanan and Lincoln were Constitutionally bound to do nothing about peaceful political opposition. Unfortunately for the Confederacy's future, Southern leaders believed that their innate superior military skills would enable them to prevail in the war they deliberately started. Of course the widely publicized shelling of an American military base took off the Constitutional handcuffs which had prevented two presidents from responding to the gravest political crisis the nation has ever faced.

I came across an interesting comment Lincoln made in this regard during a speech he delivered when he was just beginning to campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. It was actually directed to Americans living below the Ohio River.

Will you make war upon us and kill us all?
Man for man, you are not better than we are.
And there are not so many of you as there are of us.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Cincinnati, 1859

I can agree with most of your post except that a president has to recognize secession. It is not peaceful opposition to seize govt armories and blockade a US Fort. The above quote can be interpreted has a warning to the South not to engage in armed conflict .
Leftyhunter

 

[cash]

I've felt for some time that the Confederacy lost its bid for independence due to the initiation of an armed conflict at Fort Sumter. The bloodless secession of the seven Cotton states between December, 1860 and February, 1861 is very possibly the most politically adroit event in American history. Both Buchanan and Lincoln were Constitutionally bound to do nothing about peaceful political opposition.

I disagree.

The President is constitutionally bound to execute the laws of the United States. Hence, in his Inaugural, Lincoln said he would do just that. He would see to it that the mail was delivered, that the buildings and facilities of the United States were held, and that the revenue laws would be enforced. Force can be used against opposition to enforcement of US Law. Lincoln was prepared to use that force and told the world he was prepared to use that force if it was necessary to enforce the law. Governments have the legitimate right to use force to enforce their laws.

 

[favedave]

Yes governments do have a right to enforce the law, with force if necessary. However, the Confederacy itself had never used force prior to Ft. Sumter. All previous seizures had been executed by the state governments' militias or 'private citizens.' In most cases they merely occupied facilities which had been abandoned by federal troops and civilians. Fort Sumter would have fallen the same way, had Davis waited 24 hours for Anderson to surrender the fort voluntarily. A storm prevented the rescue, resupply ships from arriving before that time had passed.

 

[JeffBrooks]

Clearly, the answer is both. The Confederacy lost for both internal and external reasons. The enormous superiority of the Union in terms of manpower, money, and industrial strength was a necessary prerequisite for the defeat of the Confederacy, but it did not foreordain a Confederate defeat. For that, strategic errors on the part of the Confederacy and failures of Southern society were also necessary.

Had the Confederacy performed pretty much as it historically did, it would have won its independence had it had anything like equal manpower, money, and industrial strength vis-a-vis the Union. Similarly, even with the Union's advantages, the Confederacy could have still won its independence had it not failed in terms of military strategy, diplomacy, and fiscal policy.

 

[wilber6150]

What the author did not mention was the fact that the USN could blockade Confederate ports vs the CSN which could not. The Author did not mention that Gen. Scotts Anoconda Plan actually worked. The CSA could neither over the long term defend its ports nor blockade Union ports. Yes the CSN had success raiding commerce ships but many Union ship owners simply re registered their ships has French or British which solved the problem not to mention the raiders where eventually sunk.
Leftyhunter

Really? I've never knew that ship owners did that, pretty smart as the Confederates wouldn't dare tick off the very countries they were hoping would help them...

 

[leftyhunter]

Really? I've never knew that ship owners did that, pretty smart as the Confederates wouldn't dare tick off the very countries they were hoping would help them...

I read that in the Time Life book of 1964 that dealt quite a bit with the blockade. Something like 50% of American ship owners re registered their ships. I suppose if the raiders where not sunk it would of gotten to close to 100%. I am somewhat surprised the USN did not have convoys but I will defer to Mr. Jenkins on that one.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Clearly, the answer is both. The Confederacy lost for both internal and external reasons. The enormous superiority of the Union in terms of manpower, money, and industrial strength was a necessary prerequisite for the defeat of the Confederacy, but it did not foreordain a Confederate defeat. For that, strategic errors on the part of the Confederacy and failures of Southern society were also necessary.

Had the Confederacy performed pretty much as it historically did, it would have won its independence had it had anything like equal manpower, money, and industrial strength vis-a-vis the Union. Similarly, even with the Union's advantages, the Confederacy could have still won its independence had it not failed in terms of military strategy, diplomacy, and fiscal policy.

I look at the military situation of the CW has an analogy of if your the ( whatever belt is just below the light heavy weight) champ of boxing and your going to fight the heavyweight champ of the world for the heavyweight title then there is no room for error. You need to knock him out in three rounds or less. You pray the heavy weight champ is out of shape and has been hitting the all you can eat buffets for the past month plus he smokes.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Yes governments do have a right to enforce the law, with force if necessary. However, the Confederacy itself had never used force prior to Ft. Sumter. All previous seizures had been executed by the state governments' militias or 'private citizens.' In most cases they merely occupied facilities which had been abandoned by federal troops and civilians. Fort Sumter would have fallen the same way, had Davis waited 24 hours for Anderson to surrender the fort voluntarily. A storm prevented the rescue, resupply ships from arriving before that time had passed.

I got to go with Cash on that one.
Leftyhunter

 

[cash]

Yes governments do have a right to enforce the law, with force if necessary. However, the Confederacy itself had never used force prior to Ft. Sumter. All previous seizures had been executed by the state governments' militias or 'private citizens.' In most cases they merely occupied facilities which had been abandoned by federal troops and civilians. Fort Sumter would have fallen the same way, had Davis waited 24 hours for Anderson to surrender the fort voluntarily. A storm prevented the rescue, resupply ships from arriving before that time had passed.

The confederacy didn't exist prior to Federal soldiers occupying Fort Sumter. Before firing on Fort Sumter the confederacy most certainly did use force by surrounding Federal soldiers with artillery and threatening to blow the garrison to kingdom come.