Southern advantages and how the south almost won the war

[1stvermont]

South advantages

North attacking south defending

The largest advantage being the South did not have to destroy north, just cause enough damage to sew for peace. The north was the invaders and had to capture and defeat the south. The south had shorter supply lines and great geographical defensive position with many east/west mountains and rivers. The south would more than not have the advantage of being dug in,forts and defensive terrain in battles to help offset the numbers of the north. The confederacy had long coastline with over 2,500 miles and the Union navy started with a relativity small navy in 1861 numbered less than 40 usable ships. meaning it was very hard to blockade entire coast. Defending your country also meant citizens often helped provide food, shelter, and provide information on union whereabouts. While the north was invading a hostile country. *The weapons and tactics of the day favored defensive warfare.



Calvary

Early in war the north viewed Calvary as expensive and not worth raising in large numbers. It being to long to train up new units. The north also did not utilize Calvary the way the south did the first few years of the war being used almost entirely as scouts. Southerners were naturally better riders and shooters and could move faster and fight better on horse. Southern agrarian lifestyle and lack of rail and mass transit meant southerns relied on horses for travel and were more accustomed than the northern solider. Southerners came to the Calvary with their own mount, and were experienced riders with their horse. Northern Calvary were given by the military and required training. Sherman noted how General Forrest Calvary could “ Travel one hundred miles in less time than it takes our to travel ten”. A union officer said of the Calvary in Virginia led my Ashby “I can't catch them sir, they leap fences and walls like deer neither our men or horses are so trained”. Southern generals especially early in war consistent showed there better riding skills and better horsemanship by riding around entire union armies and in the case of Jo shelby entire states boosting southern morale A song was written early in war because of the dominance of southern Calvary under General Stuart in Virginia, some of the lyrics go like this

"If you want to have a good time, jine [Join] the cavalry!
Jine the cavalry! Jine the cavalry!
If you want to catch the Devil, if you want to have fun,
If you want to smell Hell, jine the cavalry!"


The south utilized Calvary from the onset to its full potential with many roles including engagements.. The south had more military trained Calvary officers. “More cavalry officers hailed from the South than from the North, and upon the outbreak of war the majority of those cavalry officers resigned their commissions and joined the Confederate cavalry, leaving the Union Army at a further competitive disadvantage. The south had great Calvary generals like Nathan Bedford Forrest, Jo Shelby, Joseph Wheeler, John Mosby, Jeb Stuart, John Morgan, John Wharton, Wade Hampton, Fitzhugh Lee, Quantrill , Stand Watie, William Anderson, Turner Ashby and more. While the north lacked great Calvary generals with really only Phil Sheridan being a great general. The north and south viewed southern Calvary as far superior and northern Calvary as not being able to stand in a major fight against southern Calvary until brandy station in June 63. Union General William Tecumseh Sherman described the Confederate cavalry in 1863 as “splendid riders, shots, and utterly reckless . . . the best Cavalry in the world.” . The south also massed artillery early in the war for more effectiveness, the north did not do so until Gettysburg and on.


Generals
Most would agree the south had a advantage in generals at the time of the civil war. Generals like lee, Jackson, Longstreet and many others. The reason being largely because “Seven of the eight military colleges in the country were in the South”. The northern collage west point was attended by large numbers of southern and norther generals. That means more commanders from the bottom up. More qualified regimental commanders,more company commanders,more brigade commanders etc This also means the larger union army has more general spots to fill, meaning watered down generals and hard pushed to put together a top to bottom well commanded army.. The south also produced many great generals with no military training such as generals Forrest, Wade Hapton, John Morgan and others. The north suffered to find Great generals even at the highest level. When your best general in the entire war [usually seen as] is caught complete off guard at Shiloh and his army saved by one last hill and the opposing army commander being killed. And when Grant is nicknamed “The butcher” not for killing off large enemies numbers but his own, the northern generals abilities should be questioned.



South more adapt and ready for war agrarian lifestyle

As said before the south had advantage in military collages and “A larger number of West Point graduates and a greater proportion of Regular Army troops hailed from the South “.
Southerners were more often hunters and learned to shoot from a young age needing less training and being better shots.


Slaves

Many see the slaves as unusable for war by the south. Yet it was the slaves who worked in the fields that allowed the whites to go to war without a production drop. Slaves fed the confederate armies. They built fortifications, repaired bridges, built railroads and did labor work allowing larger % of whites to be in combat. General Beauregard mentioned how because the slaves built the defensive works, that allowed rest and time for the soldiers to train more. North would lose production when men went to war on farms and jobs across the north. There were also thousands of slaves, and free blacks who would fight for the south or would be medics,cooks etc in the CSA army.


General Grant memoirs on Union generals saying what a splendid fight the south put up to last four years and southern morale and will to fight

The south overall had a greater will to fight defending its country and way of life. While the north was divided on many issues with many not wanting the war. General grant in his memoirs said how the south was a “Whole military camp” able to fully muster its country and potential. He said all southerners were involved in army even psychically disabled. Woman and slaves worked and feed the armies. The south had No rear had to be protected so all troops could be sent to the front to fight for every inch. The Press in south was loyal to the cause while in north often disloyal. Often making southern success seem greater and northern setbacks larger to turn opinion from the war. North had to guard prisoner camps to prevent there release by outside forces. North had to guard northern industrial cities to prevent destruction from burning, plans were made by southern and northern populace. The southern cause was popular and well supported with higher morale among south for war than the north for war. By end of war almost universal that between 14 and 60 ages southerns fought in the war. North had to protect supply, at all areas from attack even places that were not attacked must be guarded or would be attacked Out of concern a Forrest or Morgan would attack. CSA Calvary had nothing to guard or protect but could dash around and attack week sports holding many times the number of men from the north out of war to defend. South were defending often in battles while entrenched and better positions. Northern cities and towns seemed as if at peace, cities grew production inventions aimed at regular civil life. The north was not and did not fully fight the war because the motivation was not there.


South almost won?

I just finished reading, How the south could have won the civil war Bevin Alexander Crown publishing NY . I found it very interesting. He argued no war is inevitable, many times upsets happen such as in American history such as revolution. Most of his arguments I thought were not so convincing. But one After bull run Jackson wanted 5,000 men to block the federal retreat. It would have caused mass surrenderof the disoraganized , routed, green union troops bringing a early end to war. Union commander George B McClellan said the confederates could have easily won the days after bull run “ the confederacy committed its greatest error in not following up the victory at bull run”

64 elections

The 64 elections were considered to go against Lincoln by almost all of the day. Newspapers grant, Sherman, Longstreet, politicians and Lincoln himself felt the north was sick of war and ready for peace. Lincoln new he needed something to show the war was near over. Lee and grant were in a long siege in Richmond, Johnson and Sherman near Atalanta. Pools were showing Lincoln would not be reelected. Lincoln told his generals he needed something big or the war would end. Sherman and grant both could not break through against well entrenched armies in Atlanta and Richmond. The south looked to win their independence. Than Jefferson Davis replaces the defensive minded Joe Johnston with Aggressive John bell hood. Hood against the advice of all officers in army imedetley attacks, and destroyed 1/3 his army in 3 battles and is forced to retreat out of Atlanta. Sherman captures with great victory the second most important city left to the south and beats the second largest army. Know the north sees the end to the war and Lincoln wins the election.


Shiloh
Albert Johnson catches Grant totally by surprise [Grant not even on field first day] pushes his army to the brink, beating them back to one last hill. General Johnson is killed during the battle by a stray bullet. Had Johnson not been killed, or had that one last hill been taken, it would have been worst defeat of the war for either side in the field. The reinforcements the next day that changed the battle would not have mattered. Grant never would have taken command of union armies and would have been a prisoner or permanent out of command after such a loss. The union army of west would be destroyed, Tennessee retaken and likely Kentucky possible causing them to join the south. Vicksburg operation by grant [ his best work of war] would not have happened. With all the other victories in east in 62 the north would have been complete demoralized. There was also a supply mix up in confederate command, they went without food many stopped to eat federal food during the federal retreat at Shiloh losing time and stopping just short of the last hill and complete destruction of grants army.

[kc87]

A common perception is that even though the majority of Southern soldiers did not own slaves they still supported the institution. This is true, but I think it was the precedent that was more important. The South was at the political mercy of the North after the 1860 election and an infringement on the interpretation would mark an even faster decline of the compact they viewed as the sole security of the Union. Slavery was officially defended in the South as a necessary evil sanctioned by god. The majority of White Europeans had been land slaves for close to 1000 years in Europe and they also used this precedent to justify their system, that White Europeans were only able to gain their freedom through hundreds of years of hard work and dedication to god.

The North openly profiteered and increased the demand of slavery to meet the demands of their industrialized expansion, but at the same time criticized the institution and brought forth no viable solution. This was viewed as a great hypocrisy in the South. So the question was not should the slaves be freed, or is slavery evil, but what right does the North have over the Constitution, and what is in store for the future of the South if all political power falls to the North and this compact is now left up for interpretation. Southern states were already frustrated with the Federal government benefiting the industrialization of the North over the South, many state's viewed the Federal government as an unnecessary obstacle.

This mentality of the defense of the homeland from a hypocritical aggressor infringing on their "rights" led to a greater determination and unyielding resolve. These grudges and grievances were carried onto the battlefield with the knowledge there was far more at risk for them in this war. You could also compare the mentality of the Army of Northern Virginia to the Swedish Caroleans, there was a strong religious revival in the Southern Army and they strongly believed that god was on their side, so how could they lose.

While these advantages were mainly in mentality that was not enough to win the war. All odds were against the South, from manpower, to supplies and industry. It is of my opinion that a victory in Gettysburg would have only strengthened Northern resolve, and a capture of Washington DC, the most fortified city on Earth at the time was impossible militarily. There's also no guarantee that even if Lincoln lost the 64 election the war would have ended. McClellan viewed the current administration as blatantly incompetent and had his own views on how to win the war that I believe he would have implemented.

[1stvermont]

A common perception is that even though the majority of Southern soldiers did not own slaves they still supported the institution. This is true, but I think it was the precedent that was more important. The South was at the political mercy of the North after the 1860 election and an infringement on the interpretation would mark an even faster decline of the compact they viewed as the sole security of the Union. Slavery was officially defended in the South as a necessary evil sanctioned by god. The majority of White Europeans had been land slaves for close to 1000 years in Europe and they also used this precedent to justify their system, that White Europeans were only able to gain their freedom through hundreds of years of hard work and dedication to god.

The North openly profiteered and increased the demand of slavery to meet the demands of their industrialized expansion, but at the same time criticized the institution and brought forth no viable solution. This was viewed as a great hypocrisy in the South. So the question was not should the slaves be freed, or is slavery evil, but what right does the North have over the Constitution, and what is in store for the future of the South if all political power falls to the North and this compact is now left up for interpretation. Southern states were already frustrated with the Federal government benefiting the industrialization of the North over the South, many state's viewed the Federal government as an unnecessary obstacle.

This mentality of the defense of the homeland from a hypocritical aggressor infringing on their "rights" led to a greater determination and unyielding resolve. These grudges and grievances were carried onto the battlefield with the knowledge there was far more at risk for them in this war. You could also compare the mentality of the Army of Northern Virginia to the Swedish Caroleans, there was a strong religious revival in the Southern Army and they strongly believed that god was on their side, so how could they lose.

While these advantages were mainly in mentality that was not enough to win the war. All odds were against the South, from manpower, to supplies and industry. It is of my opinion that a victory in Gettysburg would have only strengthened Northern resolve, and a capture of Washington DC, the most fortified city on Earth at the time was impossible militarily. There's also no guarantee that even if Lincoln lost the 64 election the war would have ended. McClellan viewed the current administration as blatantly incompetent and had his own views on how to win the war that I believe he would have implemented.

Great post. Even a victory at Gettysburg would have likely led only to a short capture of Baltimore not Washington, D.C was not in lees plans. Than a retreat back to Virginia. Though morale of north would have suffered greatly I belive and perhaps english or french intervention more likely. This would have led to a better situation on election day perhaps with Lincoln not being elected. But as you stated that even if Lincoln was not reelected, does not guarantee peace would come. Those the 64 democratic platform did call for it. Gettysburg to me, was not the biggest most important war ending battle it is often made out to be. South had they won at Gettysburg , would not have ended the war, and did not lose their last chance when they lost there either.

[kc87]

Great post. Even a victory at Gettysburg would have likely led only to a short capture of Baltimore not Washington, D.C was not in lees plans. Than a retreat back to Virginia. Though morale of north would have suffered greatly I belive and perhaps english or french intervention more likely. This would have led to a better situation on election day perhaps with Lincoln not being elected. But as you stated that even if Lincoln was not reelected, does not guarantee peace would come. Those the 64 democratic platform did call for it. Gettysburg to me, was not the biggest most important war ending battle it is often made out to be. South had they won at Gettysburg , would not have ended the war, and did not lose their last chance when they lost there either.

Yep there were 60 forts, 837 artillery pieces and 23,000 men garrisoned at D.C, 15,000 troops around Arlington, and another 33,000 in the department of the Susquehanna.

Foreign intervention was a pipedream after the Trent affair. The US government also had large lucrative contracts with France and England to buy up loads of weapons to keep them out of Confederate hands. The US Navy was monstrous (around 600 ships) and any foreign entree would have to cross the entire Atlantic Ocean then face the largest Navy on earth at the time which probably would have ended in disaster.