Why the Confederacy Lost

[cash]

All I am saying is that if Richmand were 2 fall, all else would have been a footnote.

Why do you believe that? In the American Revolution, the British took what was the American capital at the time, Philadelphia, and it didn't end the war. Why would Richmond falling end anything? Richmond fell toward the end of the Civil War and that didn't end the war. It took the defeat and capture of the two major confederate armies to cause the final collapse.

The rules of "a civil war" were still quite respected, in spite of what we did 2 the british in the revolution.

What rules are you talking about?

 

[Elennsar]

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.

That raises the question of how a militarily unsuccessful - at least in the sense of stopping Union offenses cold - Confederacy was going to inflict heavy losses on the Union.

 

[leftyhunter]

That raises the question of how a militarily unsuccessful - at least in the sense of stopping Union offenses cold - Confederacy was going to inflict heavy losses on the Union.

I can't answer for Jeff Brooks but one could argue if the Union forces would keep on attacking well entrenched positions such has Cold Harbor and Petersburg i.e. the Crater then yes he raises a valid point.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

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

If you study the insurgent conflict in Mo and the Confederate counter -insurgency campaigns one can conclude there was no rules it was rather similar to current counter insurgency campaigns being waged today minus the technology. Lee knew from the defeat of Confederate guerrillas in Mo that guerrilla warfare can be defeated by the Union if they remove the Confederate populace from the areas where the guerrillas operate.
Lets not forget that captured USCT troops where often killed by their captors we have some threads on that. The treatment by both sides of POWS was often far from civilized i.e. Andersonville and Camp Douglas for the Union. Not to say Unionist guerrillas could be uncivilized sometimes.
Leftyhunter

 

[Elennsar]

I can't answer for Jeff Brooks but one could argue if the Union forces would keep on attacking well entrenched positions such has Cold Harbor and Petersburg i.e. the Crater then yes he raises a valid point.
Leftyhunter

Well, that's just it. Those were military triumphs - the Confederacy didn't win those by spiritual (as opposed to material) superiority.

 

[leftyhunter]

Well, that's just it. Those were military triumphs - the Confederacy didn't win those by spiritual (as opposed to material) superiority.

True. I argue winning a war is something like winning a poker tournament ones opponent needs to make a lot of mistakes and one needs some luck. One also has to make some correct decisions. It ain't easy to win . I do agree with Jeff Brooks point that if the Union kept on making bad decisions has noted then yes the Union voters would throw in the towel, McClleen has we know still won 45% of the popular vote but only won the electoral votes of three states. Therefore it seems reasonable that if the Union Army would of suffered a few more defeats such has Cold Harbor then McClleen may very well of won the Presidency of course that didn't happen but maybe it was not all that far out a possibility.
Leftyhunter

 

[JeffBrooks]

Well, that's just it. Those were military triumphs - the Confederacy didn't win those by spiritual (as opposed to material) superiority.

It depends on how you define it. For example, the Overland Campaign as a whole was not, strictly speaking, a military victory for the Confederacy. But the unspeakable losses Grant suffered in driving towards Richmond made it a political victory for the Confederacy, since every Union soldier that fell made it more likely that Lincoln would lose the election.