Golden Thread Would the Union Have Won the Civil War Without Immigrants ? (poll)

Would the Union Have Won the Civil War Without Immigrants ?

  • Yes

    Votes: 18 29.5%
  • No

    Votes: 36 59.0%
  • Don't Know

    Votes: 7 11.5%

  • Total voters
    61
Not understanding why giving the Confederacy time to absorb a new crop of 18 year olds and probably train them and the already enlisted Confederates soldiers is such a great idea. Not understanding why giving the Confederacy more time to import West European arms is a great idea either. Wilmington North Carolina port was functional late into the war and was still receiving West European arms. I never heard of any nation engaged in a Civil War that took a time out.
Leftyhunter
:D The US was growing so fast that a pause of 5 years would have made it no contest. The Confederacy was leaking people who wanted to get west and away from the war, and escaping slaves. The US achieved the strategic situation it needed by July 1863. They had the border areas, the three major rivers, their RR network was protected, Great Lakes shipping was safe, they were sending material to California, British investors were making money on US and Canadian RRs, and Atlantic shipping was shifting in favor of Britain. That status quo was OK for almost everyone. There was even the possibility of getting some cotton from Louisiana and Tennessee.
Lincoln was even thinking of establishing fake governments in Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee and Florida. He was getting close to 3/4ths of the states.
The war that was destroying the Confederacy was making the rest of the US stronger, because of people.
 
:D The US was growing so fast that a pause of 5 years would have made it no contest. The Confederacy was leaking people who wanted to get west and away from the war, and escaping slaves. The US achieved the strategic situation it needed by July 1863. They had the border areas, the three major rivers, their RR network was protected, Great Lakes shipping was safe, they were sending material to California, British investors were making money on US and Canadian RRs, and Atlantic shipping was shifting in favor of Britain. That status quo was OK for almost everyone. There was even the possibility of getting some cotton from Louisiana and Tennessee.
Lincoln was even thinking of establishing fake governments in Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee and Florida. He was getting close to 3/4ths of the states.
The war that was destroying the Confederacy was making the rest of the US stronger, because of people.
Again giving an enemy a chance to absorb and train new soldiers and import war materials is not a great strategy. I would love to know of any nation that took a time out on a Civil War.
Leftyhunter
 
If the Union could have won without imagrants is hard to judge. Without imagrants working in industry there would be less men to join the army. The Union Army would be smaller. Still the Union would have had a manpower advantage and an industrial advantage. So I would have to say, maybe/probably would have won the Civil War.
 
They did have to contend with draft rioters and the confinement of disgruntled citizens.
Yes also the Confederacy had to deal with hunger rioters mostly women and children in Southern cities. The Confederacy had to deal with disgruntled deserters who with became Unionist guerrillas,defected to the Union Army or became free lance bandits. The Confederacy also locked up up disgruntled citizens.
Leftyhunter
 
My point is that the Union didn't have an unlimited source of manpower.Yes immigrants were recruited into the US Military but it was rather rare for the Union to have the three to one manpower superiority ratio that is recommended for offensive operations. Also desertion was a major for both sides with the caveat that Union deserters rarely defected to the Confederacy or became anti Union guerrillas.
Leftyhunter


As long as Immigrants were entering into the United States and joining the United States military, the United States had an unlimited source of manpower, now was that source a major source in numbers, can be questioned, but an unlimited source of manpower it was, even if it was at the rate of just 5 men a week, 5 men a week is still an unlimited source of manpower.

I am positive it was rare for the United States Military to have a 3 to 1 ratio for an offensive operation and I am also sure it was even more rare, if ever, that the Confederate States Military had a 3 to 1 ratio for an offensive operation. However, the ratio of either side is irrelevant to the topic of the thread.

Respectfully,

William

One Nation
Two countries
Confed-American Flag - Thumbnail.jpg
 
As long as Immigrants were entering into the United States and joining the United States military, the United States had an unlimited source of manpower, now was that source a major source in numbers, can be questioned, but an unlimited source of manpower it was, even if it was at the rate of just 5 men a week, 5 men a week is still an unlimited source of manpower.

I am positive it was rare for the United States Military to have a 3 to 1 ratio for an offensive operation and I am also sure it was even more rare, if ever, that the Confederate States Military had a 3 to 1 ratio for an offensive operation. However, the ratio of either side is irrelevant to the topic of the thread.

Respectfully,

William

One Nation
Two countries
View attachment 296207
An unlimited source of man power would be at least 500 immigrants a week. The Union Army could only average 1.86 to one manpower superiority ratio in a major battle. And has been mentioned was sometimes outnumbered by the Confederate Army. It is a list cause myth that overwhelming numbers of blue bellies overcame the outnumbered but far beaver and noble Confederate soldier.
Leftyhunter
 
An unlimited source of man power would be at least 500 immigrants a week. The Union Army could only average 1.86 to one manpower superiority ratio in a major battle. And has been mentioned was sometimes outnumbered by the Confederate Army. It is a list cause myth that overwhelming numbers of blue bellies overcame the outnumbered but far beaver and noble Confederate soldier.
Leftyhunter


No an unlimited source of manpower is not "at least 500 immigrants a week" an unlimited source of manpower is an unlimited source of manpower regardless of the numbers per week, per month, or per year.

Though I am interested in the source where you did obtain the 500 Immigrants a week number, as I have not ran across that source in my studies and would like to add it to my sources for future research.

I have noticed over the last few years the myth making of some so called historians and pro-northerners who wish to try and pass off as a fact that it was the United States who was weak and feeble, who suffered from shortages of men, weapons, and supplies. That attempt is a part of the United States False Cause. I think the facts speak other wise. You are not trying to do that are you?

You did use the terminology "The Union Army could only average 1.86 to one manpower superiority ratio in a major battle" 1.86 is close to a 2 to 1 superiority, yet you wish to use "could only"...............I am about to cry a river of tears over here Lefty.

Respectfully,

William

One Nation
Two countries
Confed-American Flag - Thumbnail.jpg
 
No an unlimited source of manpower is not "at least 500 immigrants a week" an unlimited source of manpower is an unlimited source of manpower regardless of the numbers per week, per month, or per year.

Though I am interested in the source where you did obtain the 500 Immigrants a week number, as I have not ran across that source in my studies and would like to add it to my sources for future research.

I have noticed over the last few years the myth making of some so called historians and pro-northerners who wish to try and pass off as a fact that it was the United States who was weak and feeble, who suffered from shortages of men, weapons, and supplies. That attempt is a part of the United States False Cause. I think the facts speak other wise. You are not trying to do that are you?

You did use the terminology "The Union Army could only average 1.86 to one manpower superiority ratio in a major battle" 1.86 is close to a 2 to 1 superiority, yet you wish to use "could only"...............I am about to cry a river of tears over here Lefty.

Respectfully,

William

One Nation
Two countries
View attachment 296209
500 a week is just a theoretical number to illustrate a point. The US did have shortages of weapons even shoes per one thread. Overall the Union Army was reasonably well equipped. Numbers mater I stand by my point the Union Army did not have an unlimited source of manpower. If it did the ACW would of ended quickly. 1.86 to one manpower superiority ratio is not terrible but it is far from ideal.
Leftyhunter
 
Yes also the Confederacy had to deal with hunger rioters mostly women and children in Southern cities. The Confederacy had to deal with disgruntled deserters who with became Unionist guerrillas,defected to the Union Army or became free lance bandits. The Confederacy also locked up up disgruntled citizens.
Leftyhunter
The Confederacy certainly would have benefited from additional immigrant manpower. However, what does the Confederacy have to do with the topic of this thread?
 
The Confederacy certainly would have benefited from additional immigrant manpower. However, what does the Confederacy have to do with the topic of this thread?
Because you criticize the Union for having problems with retaining manpower and internal dissent. To be fair and balanced we have to objectively look at both sides if we bring up the problems of one side.
Leftyhunter
 
500 a week is just a theoretical number to illustrate a point. The US did have shortages of weapons even shoes per one thread. Overall the Union Army was reasonably well equipped. Numbers mater I stand by my point the Union Army did not have an unlimited source of manpower. If it did the ACW would of ended quickly. 1.86 to one manpower superiority ratio is not terrible but it is far from ideal.
Leftyhunter

So the 500 number was pulled out of the air to illustrate your point? I was wondering where it came from, as I had stated I had not ran across it in my studies.

I think you and I are confusing unlimited source of manpower (My point) with an unlimited manpower amount at one time (Your point). You have every right to stand by your belief, however wrong I find it to be, and I disagree with it, but you are entitled to it, just as I am mine.

I do agree with you on the 1.86 ratio not being ideal, but it is far better to be on the positive side of the 1.86 ratio than on the negative side of it as the Confederate States of America was, and I am sure any nation at war would want to have the biggest positive ratio difference as possible. Had the Confederate States Military enjoyed the 1.86 ratio over the United States military, I think the the War for Southern Independence ends quicker, even perhaps as soon as Manassas.

Respectfully,

William

One Nation
Two countries
Confed-American Flag - Thumbnail.jpg
 
So the 500 number was pulled out of the air to illustrate your point? I was wondering where it came from, as I had stated I had not ran across it in my studies.

I think you and I are confusing unlimited source of manpower (My point) with an unlimited manpower amount at one time (Your point). You have every right to stand by your belief, however wrong I find it to be, and I disagree with it, but you are entitled to it, just as I am mine.

I do agree with you on the 1.86 ratio not being ideal, but it is far better to be on the positive side of the 1.86 ratio than on the negative side of it as the Confederate States of America was, and I am sure any nation at war would want to have the biggest positive ratio difference as possible. Had the Confederate States Military enjoyed the 1.86 ratio over the United States military, I think the the War for Southern Independence ends quicker, even perhaps as soon as Manassas.

Respectfully,

William

One Nation
Two countries
View attachment 296210
I made it very clear in my first post that 500 new immigrant recruits might meet the definition of unlimited manpower. Yes if the Confederacy had a 1.86 to one manpower superiority ratio it would if won it's Independence. If my Aunt had a certain something she would be my Uncle.
For an offensive army 1.86 to one is not a huge advantage.
Leftyhunter
 
I made it very clear in my first post that 500 new immigrant recruits might meet the definition of unlimited manpower. Yes if the Confederacy had a 1.86 to one manpower superiority ratio it would if won it's Independence. If my Aunt had a certain something she would be my Uncle.
For an offensive army 1.86 to one is not a huge advantage.
Leftyhunter

Yes you did make it clear that 500 new Immigrants MIGHT meet the definition of unlimited manpower, however 5 new Immigrants MIGHT also meet the definition, correct?

A 1.86 positive ratio may not be a huge advantage for an offensive minded army, but it is a ratio the Confederate States of America would have loved to have had. The amount of manpower sets the strategy of a general and his army.

What does Lee do with a 1 to 1 ratio, or a 1.50 positive ratio? What does Grant do if facing a 1 to 1 ratio or a negative ratio of 1.50? Interesting thoughts but one can only answer with speculative answers, except Lee was often outnumbered, and in some cases did prevail. Which is why I often state, in my opinion, that Lee did more with Less than any general in the War for Southern Independence. Now did that make Lee the best? That remains to be seen, and can only be answered by me in a speculative nature.

Respectfully,

William

One Nation
Two countries
Confed-American Flag - Thumbnail.jpg
 
Because you criticize the Union for having problems with retaining manpower and internal dissent. To be fair and balanced we have to objectively look at both sides if we bring up the problems of one side.
Leftyhunter
Having a supply of replacements to confront the problems happends in war. I believe a poster quoted approx 25% of Union soldiers were direct immigrants. In this case there was men needed to ressupply the Union’s war effort with enlistment expirations, desertions, casualties, medical, etc. Men were also needed besides combat operations such as garrison duty in controlled areas, individual state, militias, etc that may not be factored into your ratios.
 
Having a supply of replacements to confront the problems happends in war. I believe a poster quoted approx 25% of Union soldiers were direct immigrants. In this case there was men needed to ressupply the Union’s war effort with enlistment expirations, desertions, casualties, medical, etc. Men were also needed besides combat operations such as garrison duty in controlled areas, individual state, militias, etc that may not be factored into your ratios.
My ratio is based on the men present for Duty during actual battles. They do not include support personnel just those engaged in battle.
Leftyhunter
 
Yes you did make it clear that 500 new Immigrants MIGHT meet the definition of unlimited manpower, however 5 new Immigrants MIGHT also meet the definition, correct?

A 1.86 positive ratio may not be a huge advantage for an offensive minded army, but it is a ratio the Confederate States of America would have loved to have had. The amount of manpower sets the strategy of a general and his army.

What does Lee do with a 1 to 1 ratio, or a 1.50 positive ratio? What does Grant do if facing a 1 to 1 ratio or a negative ratio of 1.50? Interesting thoughts but one can only answer with speculative answers, except Lee was often outnumbered, and in some cases did prevail. Which is why I often state, in my opinion, that Lee did more with Less than any general in the War for Southern Independence. Now did that make Lee the best? That remains to be seen, and can only be answered by me in a speculative nature.

Respectfully,

William

One Nation
Two countries
View attachment 296213
If Lee had a 1 to 1 ratio or outnumbered Grant by 1.5 to 1 then most likely there would be a stalemate. In the pre Airpower era the side that seizes and holds territory wins. If the AnV fights the AoP to a draw but other Union Armies seize and hold Confederate territory especially the ports the Union wins.
Leftyhunter
 
Back
Top