Why the Confederacy Lost

[cash]

I can post the top ten US sub commanders and their total tonnage, but it's like comparing apple to grapes. The USS Virginia did not have to deal with fast destroyers or air cover or radar, or radio communication.
Again the author was careful to restrict his claim to commercial ships. As the US Sub force and the German U-boats were
targeting Merchant Marines they were not technically commercial ships. Of course on the other side of that, there is much greater risk involved in attacking a fleet of Merchant Marines escorted by DD's and DE's and Cruisers and operating under CAPs (Combat Air Patrols).
But the claim that really goes over the top is to say the US has never recovered from the loss..... That is 100% books salesmanship. During WWII we were building transports or liberty ships faster then the enemy could sink them,.

Once again, he's talking about the relative position of the merchant fleet.

 

[damYankee]

Once again, he's talking about the relative position of the merchant fleet.

Relative to what? It's a ridicules claim. One ship capturing whaling boats set us back 150 years? Nonsense!

 

[cash]

Relative to what? It's a ridicules claim. One ship capturing whaling boats set us back 150 years? Nonsense!

Relative to the rest of the world.

It was the selling off of the merchant fleet as a result of the reputation of that ship that did it.

 

[Lt R. Blackwell 4th Texas]

FWIW, my top reasons (in ascending order of importance):

10. Overconfidence at beginning of war.
9. Effect of Union loyalists.
8. Lack of cooperation from some Southern governors and other leaders.
7. Inability to expand/repair its rail lines.
6. Unstable national finances / currency inflation.
5. Lack of manpower.
4. Inability to move sufficient rations/supplies to its main armies (especially ANV and its horses).
3. Poor generalship above the division level in the Western theater.
2. The far and (nearly) irresistible reach of the Union Navy.
1. Abraham Lincoln.

 

[CW3O]

FWIW, my top reasons (in ascending order of importance):

10. Overconfidence at beginning of war.
9. Effect of Union loyalists.
8. Lack of cooperation from some Southern governors and other leaders.
7. Inability to expand/repair its rail lines.
6. Unstable national finances / currency inflation.
5. Lack of manpower.
4. Inability to move sufficient rations/supplies to its main armies (especially ANV and its horses).
3. Poor generalship above the division level in the Western theater.
2. The far and (nearly) irresistible reach of the Union Navy.
1. Abraham Lincoln.

Ceratinly some excellent contributing factors here, but omission of the Union Army is glaring. It was the Union Army that endured early defeat and recovered to change the tide and contribute greatly to eventually end the rebellion.

 

[War Horse]

FWIW, my top reasons (in ascending order of importance):

10. Overconfidence at beginning of war.
9. Effect of Union loyalists.
8. Lack of cooperation from some Southern governors and other leaders.
7. Inability to expand/repair its rail lines.
6. Unstable national finances / currency inflation.
5. Lack of manpower.
4. Inability to move sufficient rations/supplies to its main armies (especially ANV and its horses).
3. Poor generalship above the division level in the Western theater.
2. The far and (nearly) irresistible reach of the Union Navy.
1. Abraham Lincoln.

All very good points. Gen Robert E. Lee was very much aware of all of these limitations. This is why the loss at Gettysburg was so crushing. He had every intention of destroying the AOP at Gettysburg and ending the war in 1863. He know the longer the war dragged out the odds of CSA victory decreased. It must have been torture for him to watch the inevitable play itself out over the next two years.

 

[Lt R. Blackwell 4th Texas]

All very good points. Gen Robert E. Lee was very much aware of all of these limitations. This is why the loss at Gettysburg was so crushing. He had every intention of destroying the AOP at Gettysburg and ending the war in 1863. He know the longer the war dragged out the odds of CSA victory decreased. It must have been torture for him to watch the inevitable play itself out over the next two years.

True. He also thought he might have destroyed the AOP during the Seven Days and Chancellorsville, and expressed deep regret that it was not. He knew winning was not enough; he had to win big.

 

[leftyhunter]

FWIW, my top reasons (in ascending order of importance):

10. Overconfidence at beginning of war.
9. Effect of Union loyalists.
8. Lack of cooperation from some Southern governors and other leaders.
7. Inability to expand/repair its rail lines.
6. Unstable national finances / currency inflation.
5. Lack of manpower.
4. Inability to move sufficient rations/supplies to its main armies (especially ANV and its horses).
3. Poor generalship above the division level in the Western theater.
2. The far and (nearly) irresistible reach of the Union Navy.
1. Abraham Lincoln.

I do agree more or less on your points. I do think that one major factor can lead to effects in other factors. An example would be the Southern Unionists. Not only did they fight in the Union Army but they caused lack of manpower because many Confederate men where assigned to the home guard or Conscript Cavalry where they had to spend a lot of time looking for deserters or has they where called back then "mossbacks" not to mention fighting Unionist guerrillas or partisan rangers has they often called themselves. It has been estimated that up to 25%of the USN was black many being Southern born slaves. We had a prior thread that one of these sailors was one of Jefferson Davis's sons. Therefore if it was not for loyal Southeners the USN would not of been able to man enough ships to blockade the CSA.
Leftyhunter

 

[Elennsar]

Ceratinly some excellent contributing factors here, but omission of the Union Army is glaring. It was the Union Army that endured early defeat and recovered to change the tide and contribute greatly to eventually end the rebellion.

Don't forget the Union armies that were winning early on.

Personally, I think the Confederacy lost (in brief) because the strength it could muster (both in the field and to support those in it) was not sufficient to prevail against the strength the US could muster, or prevent the US's strength from prevailing in absence of achieving victory outright. Including factors of generalship in strength here - Joe Johnston with around 60,000 men was stronger numerically than Bragg was in the summer of 1863, but no more able to produce victories there (edit: Why not being beyond the scope of the thread - he wasn't able to do enough to beat Sherman because of reasons related to the Confederacy's internal problems, not merely its external problems).

But as a comparison, let's take Howe's campaigns in 1776 and 1777. How does that look next to the Confederacy's losses in 1862? Both sides of rebels were able to rebuild their forces, but one side was largely able to prevent conquest in the long term, and the other most certainly was not. That side also lost resource production it couldn't afford to lose much more so than the Patriots did.

So I think the Confederacy lost because its internal factors fatally undermined its chances of overcoming external factors, which were more than powerful enough to win assuming equal limits on what percentage of manpower served and so on.

A lightweight vs. a heavyweight without even a skill advantage on the lightweight's part is a desperate long shot, and God's love of fools does not extend to rigging things for them.

 

[Specster]

I know historically there have been wars in which a less populous, poorer nation has prevailed over far greater numbers and resources. Yet, once you get into the industrial error, almost without exception, the country with more men and money wins. Technology has become a factor that over rides the wills and the competence of individual soldiers to make a significant difference. What amazes me is not that the North won, rather, it is that the South put up such a good fight for so long. Talk about mistakes, military and political, for the first 3 years of the war the North did virtually nothing but make mistakes. If the south had done the same they would have lost much earlier. Political issues? Did Lincoln know that Little Mack was more interested in a negotiated peace than winning the war. And the were an entire cadre of McClullanites, basically democrats that felt the same way. Many of these generals were running the Northern armies early on.

I went to para military college and, the first month, I had these shoes that were chaffing the **** out of my feet. I ran Cross country in HS so I was generally used to distance and discomfort, but after a while, those shoes got to me. I had blisters and I went to sick bay over it. After reading about the southern soldiers, who went without shoes for months or more, even in winter, and I feel like a fool. All these people who live in ivy towers should take off their shoes and try walking 20 miles thru the woods in a day - and then let them write about their theories as to why the South lost.

 

[leftyhunter]

I know historically there have been wars in which a less populous, poorer nation has prevailed over far greater numbers and resources. Yet, once you get into the industrial error, almost without exception, the country with more men and money wins. Technology has become a factor that over rides the wills and the competence of individual soldiers to make a significant difference. What amazes me is not that the North won, rather, it is that the South put up such a good fight for so long. Talk about mistakes, military and political, for the first 3 years of the war the North did virtually nothing but make mistakes. If the south had done the same they would have lost much earlier. Political issues? Did Lincoln know that Little Mack was more interested in a negotiated peace than winning the war. And the were an entire cadre of McClullanites, basically democrats that felt the same way. Many of these generals were running the Northern armies early on.

I went to para military college and, the first month, I had these shoes that were chaffing the **** out of my feet. I ran Cross country in HS so I was generally used to distance and discomfort, but after a while, those shoes got to me. I had blisters and I went to sick bay over it. After reading about the southern soldiers, who went without shoes for months or more, even in winter, and I feel like a fool. All these people who live in ivy towers should take off their shoes and try walking 20 miles thru the woods in a day - and then let them write about their theories as to why the South lost.

You make a good point about McCllean it was mistake in hindsight for Lincoln to appoint him but of course we have the luxury of hindsight Lincoln didn't. Some posters have tried to point out the similarities of say our conflict in Vietnam was similar to the Civil War (CW). I always point out that there were a whole lot of differences. One major difference between the conflicts that you mention is the CW was fought on American soil so it was not some distant conflict,
Yes the North made plenty of mistake most notably against the AnV. On the other hand from the battle of Perryville on the Confederate forces on the west lost battle after battle. Even though the AoT won at Chickumungua it managed with in two months to loose it all at Missionary Ridge. The CSA also lost territory to Unionist guerrillas by 1864.
No doubt no one but those who fought in the conflict know what horrors they went through. I don't know any of our posters who made such a claim that they did. On the other hand the CSA lost and there must be some logical reasons why.
Leftyhunter

 

[Elennsar]

From the battle of Fort Henry on, even. Perryville was by no means the start of the downward slide of Confederate fortunes in the West - just a lost chance to reverse it.

 

[Specster]

You make a good point about McCllean it was mistake in hindsight for Lincoln to appoint him but of course we have the luxury of hindsight Lincoln didn't. Some posters have tried to point out the similarities of say our conflict in Vietnam was similar to the Civil War (CW). I always point out that there were a whole lot of differences. One major difference between the conflicts that you mention is the CW was fought on American soil so it was not some distant conflict,
Yes the North made plenty of mistake most notably against the AnV. On the other hand from the battle of Perryville on the Confederate forces on the west lost battle after battle. Even though the AoT won at Chickumungua it managed with in two months to loose it all at Missionary Ridge. The CSA also lost territory to Unionist guerrillas by 1864.
No doubt no one but those who fought in the conflict know what horrors they went through. I don't know any of our posters who made such a claim that they did. On the other hand the CSA lost and there must be some logical reasons why.
Leftyhunter

 

[Specster]

I agree with your points as well but these Unionist Gurillas which appeared in 1864-65. Were these maybe deserters, who saw the writing on the wall, plus Sherman march into the heartland, CSA soldiers left in droves. They formed "units" who's sole aim was to keep from being dragged back to a losing fight. How do we really know if these guys were Loyalist? Wont they have been around, in droves, much earlier? If u r in a fight u have no chance of winning CSA (1865) your life and your familys existance must way heavy on your thoughts and actions.

 

[Specster]

Also, the Union certain did well in the western theater, but dont u think the best of everythig went to the ANV??

 

[Elennsar]

The best of everything also went to the AotP.

It sort of balanced out, except in regards to "What's left" being far less adequate in the Confederacy than the Union, especially with the terrible arrangement of the department/s in the west for the Confederacy.

 

[Specster]

The best of everything also went to the AotP.

It sort of balanced out, except in regards to "What's left" being far less adequate in the Confederacy than the Union, especially with the terrible arrangement of the department/s in the west for the Confederacy.

Given the fact that they were starting from scratch, in the backwoods, where fewer people had basic educations, I am sure your point in valid.

 

[leftyhunter]

I agree with your points as well but these Unionist Gurillas which appeared in 1864-65. Were these maybe deserters, who saw the writing on the wall, plus Sherman march into the heartland, CSA soldiers left in droves. They formed "units" who's sole aim was to keep from being dragged back to a losing fight. How do we really know if these guys were Loyalist? Wont they have been around, in droves, much earlier? If u r in a fight u have a chance of winning CSA (1865) your life and your familys existance must way heavy on your thoughts and actions.

Hi Specster,
Unionist guerrillas occurred far earlier then 1864. By mid summer 1864 the CSA was simply short of troops and could not always give the home guard the help they needed in all areas that had Unionist Guerrillas . One of the consequences of the 1862 CSA conscription act was in caused otherwise apathetic Southern men who did not own slaves and wanted no part of the CW to decide if they have to fight they might has well fight for Union . Not that some joined already joined the Union Army in 1861. I can't know the motivations of each and every Southern man that took up arms against the CSA but many bitterly denounced the cause of the CSA.
No I don't think the AnV always got the best of it. Certainly not at Antietam. The Battle of Chansllorville was a close call that yes it was a major victory for the AnV but they lost approx 1/3 of their men. Two more such victories and they are done. Lee knew that Hooker had a good plan ( not well executed) but still he lost a lot of manpower and it would be hard to replace. Lee also knew that by the summer of 1863 the CSA was in a bad way. Lee knew that Gen Rosecrans was gathering a lot of men in Central Tn ans was planning a big offensive but where? Lee had to know that there was a very high good chance that Vicksburg would fall and that means a lot less CSA troops to go around. Lee knew he had to take a desperate gamble and it did not work out.
Leftyhunter

 

[JeffBrooks]

All very good points. Gen Robert E. Lee was very much aware of all of these limitations. This is why the loss at Gettysburg was so crushing. He had every intention of destroying the AOP at Gettysburg and ending the war in 1863. He know the longer the war dragged out the odds of CSA victory decreased. It must have been torture for him to watch the inevitable play itself out over the next two years.

Again, this is true from a military point of view only and the South never had a chance of winning the war militarily. Barring foreign intervention, the South's greatest chance of victory was essentially a political one: inflicting such heavy losses on the Union that the Northern people would throw Lincoln out in the 1864 election and replace his administration with one willing to enter peace negotiations. So long as the South maintained its ability to resist and inflict losses upon the North, it maintained the possibility of winning its independence.

 

[Specster]

If you have been studying this with intensity for better than 3 years I am sure u in all liklihood u have more knowledge than I. All I am saying is that if Richmand were 2 fall, all else would have been a footnote. The rules of "a civil war" were still quite respected, in spite of what we did 2 the british in the revolution. It is oft said that Lee could have kept some form of guirilla war going for years if not decades. But who, in the end, would have suffered? Southerners. Its like the 5th column arguments in WW2. Even if they exist, would they really have turned the tide, or just inflicted more pain amoung their people?

Lastly, I by no means infer that the ANV or the AOTP got the best of result....all I am saying is they got the best of support- of available reources. I hope I have made my opinion clear. Best regards. RFG