Ok, the FAQ: Did the South stand a chance?

[Ardie]

I have to agree with Wallysworld here.

South did have a chance but they squandered it. How? By not having an overall strategy for the war. South defended everywhere and were only able to try to contain Union armies (with the exception a the mishandled invasions from NVA).

Union had an strategy and it worked. Southern early victories weren't crushing ones which would have been needed to gain foreign recognition.

[tc237]

Depends, you taking the Grant of '63-'64 or the early war Grant?...

Somehow I knew you would get stuck on "Grant".
But I wrote "a general similar to Grant" or more specificaly a general that was competant and confident.
That used all his resources and had the faith and confidence of his subordinates.
Maybe a younger Winfield Scott? Or an earlier day Patton.

[Spharv2]

Sorry Spharv, I have to disagree. The North had the capability and capacity for fight a more all-out war than it did. Natural immigration actually boosted the population of the Union states to make up for any losses in the ACW. The economy was firing on all cylinders and the North, while experiencing some inflation, did not face (not even remotely close) any of the economic problems the South faced. When the North had (according to McPherson's book), over 90% of the total US industrial base along with over 70% of the bank deposits, the deck was clearly stacked against the South well before Sumter.

The only reason the South held on as long as they did was through superior leadership at the military level. And that superiority eroded as Union's generals such as Grant and Sherman moved up in the ranks. Once that superiority was gone (or almost gone), the collapse of the South was inevitable.

You ever read anything on the problems Chase had finding money to fund the war? The man was quite literally a genius at it, but he still had people on every side squealing about the measures he was taking. The first ever income tax was levied, but that couldn't have lasted much longer, and was removed after the war. You can get away with a lot of things for a limited time, but once you stretch that out over years, people will get tired of it, and they were.

As for the immigration, sure, a lot of them did volunteer, but most of them didn't come here to get swept up in a draft and shipped off to join a war they wanted no part of. You can see that in the draft riots which were largely composed of recent immigrants.

I'm not saying that the North didn't have advantages, they did, huge ones. But considering the lack of popular support in '62 and early '63, I believe that a better showing by the south could very well have been decisive.

As for the superiority in generalship, there was definitely one in the East, but the West was a completely different story. The South was at a disadvantage from the beginning in the largest theater of the war. Perhaps if they'd had a general who wasn't so obtuse as to ignore everything but his own state in command, they would have done better. They lost a leader in AS Johnston who might have been good, but certainly didn't show it while he was alive, JE Johnston was never able to be an effective commander with Davis questioning his every move, Bragg was...well, he was Bragg, and Pemberton was an idiot of the first degree. The West was the area that the South needed to take advantage of, and they failed, and failed miserably. Change the situation there, and I think you'd see a completely different outcome.

[Spharv2]

Somehow I knew you would get stuck on "Grant".
But I wrote "a general similar to Grant" or more specificaly a general that was competant and confident.
That used all his resources and had the faith and confidence of his subordinates.
Maybe a younger Winfield Scott? Or an earlier day Patton.

Not stuck on Grant just asking which version. If they'd had one of the latter...Yeah, the North probably could have won earlier. Not sure how much earlier though. The stalemate that happened in the East in '64 could have been extended a lot longer before the South gave up coming earlier in the war. In '64, Lee's army was facing massive shortages (Well, they were nearly from the beginning, but it got a lot worse), huge desertion rates, lack of willpower, and a lack of support. Plus their country had already been cut into thirds. Yet he was still able to achieve a stalemate.

The biggest factors would be the troops, and their attitudes. The part working against the North would be that with raw troops, the advances that Grant made in the Overland campaign simply would not have been possible. By '64, the AoP was, for the most part, a pretty highly trained and loyal army. In '61, the majority of the troops were still raw and not fully trained. By '62, this was changing rapidly. The part working against the South was that nearly all troops in the opening of the war disdained fortifications and the creation of them. The superb defensive positions enjoyed by the ANV throughout the overland campaign would not have been possible in the early war.

I think a strong leader in the East could have won it earlier, possibly '63 if he was allowed to stay in charge that long. That would be iffy, since a general willing to accept those long casualty lists in the early war stood a good chance of getting taken before congress fairly quickly.

[WallysWorld]

You ever read anything on the problems Chase had finding money to fund the war? The man was quite literally a genius at it, but he still had people on every side squealing about the measures he was taking. The first ever income tax was levied, but that couldn't have lasted much longer, and was removed after the war. You can get away with a lot of things for a limited time, but once you stretch that out over years, people will get tired of it, and they were.

As for the superiority in generalship, there was definitely one in the East, but the West was a completely different story. The South was at a disadvantage from the beginning in the largest theater of the war. Perhaps if they'd had a general who wasn't so obtuse as to ignore everything but his own state in command, they would have done better. The West was the area that the South needed to take advantage of, and they failed, and failed miserably. Change the situation there, and I think you'd see a completely different outcome.

I agree with your assessment of Chase, he was an outstanding adminstrator for Lincoln. But while people in the North did suffer by seeing their wages fall behind the cost of inflation, by 1865 wage increases in the North had almost match the increased cost of goods due to the war. McPherson also writes that many women on northern farms took over the jobs that the men used to do thanks to new and better farm equipment from industrialization. Something that the South never had the chance to have.

I don't know if I agree with your assessment of people from the North being tired of the war. Once Atlanta fell, Northern enthusiasm for the war increased as people finally saw the light at the end of the tunnel. Witness the complete defeat of the Democrats in the 1864 election (220 some electoral votes to something like 20 for the Democrats according to my memory). I think Lincoln was right when he said in early 1865 that the Union could maintain its current state in the war indefinitely.

As for Southern leadership, I agree that the South should have put more resources into the western theatre. I think Davis recognized that when in 1863 he tried to place JE Johnston in overall command of the West. But Johnston wanted his old command (Army of Virginia) back and considered the post Davis offered a desk job. But Davis actually did want someone to overlook all of the armies in the West.

A big "If" of the ACW, I think, was whether Lee should have sent Longstreet's corps to the West after Chancellorsville. Longstreet wanted to be sent to Bragg's army so that they could take on Rosecran's army and cause Grant to leave Vicksburg to come to Rosecran's aid. Davis wanted Longstreet to be sent straight to JE Johnston's army that was hovering outside of Vicksburg. Wonder would have happen if Longstreet was sent to the West before Vickburg fell?

[christof139]

After going in deeper into the History of the Civil War, watching Ken Burn´s comprehensive documental, I just couldn't help but wonder if all those dead and all that suffering was worth it. Like it seemed like a very high price for the Union to pay just to impose that the "Union" of the States prevail. After all, what is the use of "forcing" upon so many States (the Confederacy) that they be part of a Union they didn't want to be a part of?

Sure, there was the slavery issue too, but still, would I have given an arm, a leg, or my life for that. I really wonder?

In anycase, what really interests me is whether there actually existed throughout the war a realistic moment or period when, due to the fierce defence of the Confederacy, the Union could have chosen to just negotiate a peace and live with two different countries instead of one?

The ACW is of course similar to the various Spanish Civil Wars, the various British/Scottish/Irish civil wars, the various French civil wars, the various Chinese civil wars, the various Japanese civil wars, etc.

People lose arms and legs etc. and their lives in wars, that is the terrible nature of wars. We, as the Human Race, should be beyond wars now, but unforunately we aren't due to many reasons or unreasonable reasoning including political and religous lunatics and totalitarinism, and some economics, but mainly due to political and religous insanity.

I would not want to lead a life in a totalitarian state, whether that state is a political or religous totalitarian state.

Chris

[John_C]

Besides the people that lose their lives and limbs in all the wars, I wonder also about those who survive them. What kind of psychological damage do they have for the rest of their life? They are usually the ones who rebuild things. Wonder how much the society the survivors rebuild is sane and healthy.

[christof139]

Besides the people that lose their lives and limbs in all the wars, I wonder also about those who survive them. What kind of psychological damage do they have for the rest of their life? They are usually the ones who rebuild things. Wonder how much the society the survivors rebuild is sane and healthy.

Keep wondering. You must live in a bubble or something similar.

If this is all new to you, I wonder where you have been and what you are experienced with in our quite convuluted world.

Chris

[Korrigan]

[color="Red"]Warning, no personal judgement please.[/color]

Chris, I'm sure you can rephrase your opinion about post-war phenomenons in a more detailed and better sustained way.

Korrigan

[John_C]

Chris,

Actually at the moment I am inmersed in the study of how disfunctionality is transferred from generation to generation in families, so that accounts for my comment.

Actually I am surprized to see how safe and functional are some western societies, especially in Europe, taking into account the long history of warfare among ourselves.

Sure, the world is full of violence and disfunctionality, but if you look at Europe, for example, and compare it to how it was not too many years ago (WWI, WWII, etc.) , things have improved greatly in peoples' ability to live and colaborate without violent conflict.

Just some thoughts.

[McNaughton]

Actually, if you look at battles in general, the South doesn't really come off as that spectacular. Realistically, from 1861-1863 both the North and South had severe difficulties when 'invading' territory. Every single Southern advance into the North met with defeat. Every single Northern advance into the South met with defeat. The problem was, neither the North nor the South could deliver a kockout blow. However, since the South was an underdog, this is seen as a virtue (i.e., that they could survive).

I think that the problem wasn't that the South was better than the North, but that neither had the 'understanding' as to how to properly invade the other. When venturing into 'enemy territory' it is almost as if military effectiveness dropped. It was a war of manoever, but neither side had the ability to completely defeat the other. Northern Generals were always criticised at 'letting Lee go', but Lee was never able to give a knockout blow against a single one of his opponents, no matter how victorious.

Lee had as many blunders as the average Northern general, however, he had the luck that Davis wasn't into firing his generals as much as Lincoln was. If he had been, Lee would have been fired in 1862.

I think that unless the Union won at 1st Bull Run, it would have taken years of conflict no matter what to win this conflict. Confederate generalship aside, conquering the South was beyond the ability of the North given the South's level of military mobilization and initial dedication. Had Lee served for the North, I really doubt that there would have been a major difference in the course of the war. Completely destroying an army in the field was beyond the abilities of either side, and the will to fight was strong enough to withstand defeats in battle experienced from 1861-64.

[christof139]

[color="Blue"](SNIP)

Edit by Korrigan: If you can't discuss and disagree calmly with other people, then please abstain from discussing at all.

If, in your opinion, some one shows some degree of ignorance, then enlight him and the whole community.

No insult to other members will ever be tolerated in this forum.[/color]

[Spharv2]

Um...wow.

[Korrigan]

Thread closed.

I've edited some inapropriate comments.

Thank you for your participation.

Best regards,

Korrigan