Why the United States won the Civil War.

Status
Not open for further replies.

wausaubob

Colonel
Member of the Month
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
It happened in 1861 and the world had changed between 1787 and 1861.
1. In 1856 David Edward Hughes invented the first stable keyboard system for electronically encoding written messages for transmission. By October 24, 1861 the transcontinental telegraph wire connected California to the east. The technical means to govern a continental empire had arrived. Its 2018 and people still use keyboards to encode messages for electronic transmission.
2. Naval power was dominant in the 19th century.
Turning to Donald Stoker's Grand Strategy, Strategy and the U.S. Civil War, Oxford University Press 2010, at p. 90 Stoker notes that the United States had purchased or constructed 300 naval vessels within a year of the start of the war. At page 93 he states, the Confederates had only nine ports between Cape Charles and the Mississippi River with rail connections: New Bern, Beaufort, Charleston, Wilmington, Savannah, Brunswick, Pensacola, Mobile and New Orleans. By May 1862 the United States had captured or closed 6 of them and only Wilmington, Charleston and Mobile remained. They probably could have closed those three also, but could adequately intimidate large cargo ships from running the blockade at those ports with the installations they had, and capture some of the blockade runners.
By June 1862 the United States had closed the Mississippi as far south as Memphis, which meant the inland waters of the continent were in the control of United States. Steam driven water craft were the most efficient means of transporting cargo at that time and the south was denied the benefit of these natural highways.
3. The main all weather transportation technology of the time were with the railroads. Please study Chris Gabel's presentation to further comprehend that the Confederacy had about 36 months to win the war before it turned into an 18th century pumpkin. https://www.c-span.org/video/?320456-1/discussion-railroads-civil-war
4. It was the age of iron. This link demonstrates visually the approximate spacial distribution of iron production in the United States in 1859. http://dsl.richmond.edu/historicalatlas/135/d/ Production is concentrated in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and in Clarksville, TN. Clarksville changed hands early in the war due to a combined arms operation conducted by US forces on the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers.
5. Here is the distribution of wheat production in the US in 1859. http://dsl.richmond.edu/historicalatlas/143/q/ Production is centered in Maryland, Wisconsin and Illinois. Wheat and Indian maize can both be used as a non perishable food source. Wheat was more valuable because it contains accessible niacin, and is a traditional food source for humans in England, and hence can be exported.The impact of wheat was that United States cities and armies of the United States did not experience food shortages when they were connected to a rail line.
6. The United States had an open immigration policy in the decades prior to the Civil War. Almost all of the immigrants were located in the northern states at the time of outbreak of the conflict. Here is a link to the numbers in tabular form: https://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0029/tab13.html
Among influential immigrants were the naval inventor John Ericsson, the Irish/American Phil Sheridan, the German emigre Carl Schurz who wrote a state paper that changed the course of Reconstruction and the railroad manager, Daniel McCallum.
7. About 40% of the population of the Confederacy were enslaved African-Americans. Although some people think the African-Americans were willing to fight the Confederacy, the only regimental sized units composed of African-Americans to see combat in the war, in my opinion, fought on behalf of the United States.

The United States only need one commanding general who was willing to combine these advantages. Since it had a very large officer pool to work with, the odds were high that the country would find such a person.
Good night and good luck.
 
Last edited:
But the one wild card in all the advantages that the north had was its motivation to keep fighting. The confederacy, and in particular Robert E. Lee, was counting on achieving significant battlefield victories which would sap the northern will to keep up the struggle and instead seek a negotiated peace. In the first 2 years of the war, the confederacy came close to attaining that goal.
 
The Confederacy put their experiment in the way of the future and the future prevailed. All that was necessary was to apply the advantages of the United States. Compressing all the damage into about 40 months of intensive fighting was probably less damaging then letting the fighting drag out into multiple conflicts with rapidly escalating improvements in weaponry.
 
But the one wild card in all the advantages that the north had was its motivation to keep fighting. The confederacy, and in particular Robert E. Lee, was counting on achieving significant battlefield victories which would sap the northern will to keep up the struggle and instead seek a negotiated peace. In the first 2 years of the war, the confederacy came close to attaining that goal.
But actually they didn't have to. All the United States had to do was hang on to Missouri and keep immigration open.
The pace of growth in the Midwest and western territories was so fast they could have simply out grown the Confederacy.
In the east, the Democratic politicians made a lot of noise, but the United States was moving rapidly towards a national common market with a national currency and national commercial law.
After July 1863 the United States could have installed an armistice and gone on with its business. :wink:
 
The simple answer: Manpower, & Resources.

Huge advantages in both made the eventual outcome, inevitable.
Plus the Union could and did use a lot of Southern manpower against the Confederacy. Per the book "Lincolns Loyalists Union soldiers from the Confederacy "Richard Current Northeastern University Press estimates 104k Union soldiers from the Confederacy plus over 100k black soldiers joined the USCT. Add to that many Unionist guerrillas in almost every Confederate state plus mass desertions and the Confederacy was doomed from being badly divided. The book "Bitterly divided the South's inner Civil war "David Williams thenswpress.com has lots of details about that.
Leftyhunter
 
The list could be endless, all of the above comments. Blockade, manpower, manufacturing facilities, raw materials, supplies,
and the slowly, but surely will of the people to obtain Peace
 
There is general agreement that the US had to win, the rebels only had to hold out long enough for the US to give up.
There are also some who assert that as long as the rebels followed this 'grand strategy', they were winning. It was only when the Army of Northern Virginia took the offense and initiated two costly invasions that they sealed their fate. The losses in these two campaigns- Antietam and Gettysburg- could not be replaced. As a result, Lee eventually lost the ability to maneuver, was forced to remain besieged in Petersburg and defeated.
A similar argument can be made for Hood's costly 1864 offensive into Tennessee that destroyed the Army of Tennessee.
 
The simple answer: Manpower, & Resources.

Huge advantages in both made the eventual outcome, inevitable.
Some would point out that it became inevitable only when Lee and Hood squandered what manpower and resources the rebels had through high-risk offensives.
 
The willpower of the man behind the gun, the Union soldier.

A nation can have all the money, resources, manpower in droves, but without the man who fights, who is at the tip of the spear and willing to go on for a cause he believes in, all the resources in the world doesn't matter.

In the end, it was the men in the ranks and their ability to fight on, even after numerous battlefield defeats and ever changing leadership at the top, they endured and brought about ultimate victory.
 
I think the stuff about overwhelming resources is overrated. The British Empire during the Revolution certainly had the resource advantage. It comes down to leadership. Edward Pollard in his Lost Cause book and Alexander Stephens in his prison diary both insisted the CSA failed due to the incompetence of the Davis administration, Stephens went as far as saying Davis wasn't a real statesman but an opportunist who just wanted to have power. Pollard also wrote a book about Lee saying he should re-birth the rebellion guerilla warfare style. Then of course there's the scenario of Britain coming to their aid.
 
Those are all good views. But the United States had the power to construct and rule an empire reaching from the Yucatan to the Yukon. The technical means of controlling this large empire came into being and the United States used that power.
As for the actions of individual soldiers, eating unlimited hard bread during a campaign and fresh bread when in camp, both supplied by a growing economy with an unlimited supply of effective labor, makes courage practical.
The rebellion lasted what, 49 months. The first 9 months was sort of a phony war, and the last 5 months the Confederacy was stalling to avoid the eventual reckoning.
The record of the war compiled by the east coast media was erroneous. The country was growing the whole time and more people voted in the 1864 election than had voted in those participating states in 1860. The press was not perceptive as to essential commitment of the people in the Midwest after the United States had unquestioned control of the Mississippi.
The material conditions supporting the war effort make courage possible.
Good responses, though.
 
The United States entered the Civil War as a developing country. It emerged from the war as a world power.
 
I think the stuff about overwhelming resources is overrated. The British Empire during the Revolution certainly had the resource advantage. It comes down to leadership. Edward Pollard in his Lost Cause book and Alexander Stephens in his prison diary both insisted the CSA failed due to the incompetence of the Davis administration, Stephens went as far as saying Davis wasn't a real statesman but an opportunist who just wanted to have power. Pollard also wrote a book about Lee saying he should re-birth the rebellion guerilla warfare style. Then of course there's the scenario of Britain coming to their aid.
Thank God Lee did not re-birth the war with guerilla warfare style. I wonder how we, as Americans, would have ended up in the long run. I know some did suggest this to Lee and he refused.
 
The United States entered the Civil War as a developing country. It emerged from the war as a world power.[/Q
The willpower of the man b

A nation can have all the money, resources, manpower in droves, but without the man who fights, who is at the tip of the spear and willing to go on for a cause he believes in, all the resources in the world doesn't matter.

In the end, it was the men in the ranks and their ability to fight on, even after numerous battlefield defeats and ever changing leadership at the top, they endured and brought about ultimate victory.
 
Some would point out that it became inevitable only when Lee and Hood squandered what manpower and resources the rebels had through high-risk offensives.
On the other hand the Confederacy lost valuable territory every year of the war. Conventional war is never won on the defense. Every year of the Civil War the Union siezed ports. Once ever major port except for Gavelson was captured there was no way to sustain a slave based export economy.
Leftyhunter
 
Thank God Lee did not re-birth the war with guerilla warfare style. I wonder how we, as Americans, would have ended up in the long run. I know some did suggest this to Lee and he refused.
We would of ended up with mass amounts Confederates being exiled from the United States.
Leftyhunter
 
I think the stuff about overwhelming resources is overrated. The British Empire during the Revolution certainly had the resource advantage. It comes down to leadership. Edward Pollard in his Lost Cause book and Alexander Stephens in his prison diary both insisted the CSA failed due to the incompetence of the Davis administration, Stephens went as far as saying Davis wasn't a real statesman but an opportunist who just wanted to have power. Pollard also wrote a book about Lee saying he should re-birth the rebellion guerilla warfare style. Then of course there's the scenario of Britain coming to their aid.
The Revolutionary War was not popular in the United Kingom that is why the United Kingdom had to hire or subcontract troops from various Germanic Principalities.
The United Kingdom had to fight a two front war in North America and the Indian Subcontinent against other European nations.
During the latter stage of the Revolutionary War the British had to fight besides the Colonial Rebels, the French Army and Spanish Navy. The Dutch also supplied the Rebels with money.
The Revolutionary War is very different from the Civil War. The United Kingdom didn't have the resources to fight multiple nations in a two front war.
Leftyhunter
 
The Revolutionary War was not popular in the United Kingom that is why the United Kingdom had to hire or subcontract troops from various Germanic Principalities.
The United Kingdom had to fight a two front war in North America and the Indian Subcontinent against other European nations.
During the latter stage of the Revolutionary War the British had to fight besides the Colonial Rebels, the French Army and Spanish Navy. The Dutch also supplied the Rebels with money.
The Revolutionary War is very different from the Civil War. The United Kingdom didn't have the resources to fight multiple nations in a two front war.
Leftyhunter

The CSA got material support from Britain. It's exaggerated how much foreign aid the revolutionaries got.

"The United Kingdom didn't have the resources to fight multiple nations in a two front war."

They were fighting wars all over the globe all the time.
 
The CSA got material support from Britain. It's exaggerated how much foreign aid the revolutionaries got.

"The United Kingdom didn't have the resources to fight multiple nations in a two front war."

They were fighting wars all over the globe all the time.
The Confederacy did not receive any material support from any nation. Private European companies sold weaponry to both sides.
The United Kingdom was not always fighting wars all the time against major military powers.. The Colonial Rebels received rather substantial foreign military and financial support.
Leftyhunter
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top