Posted on 10/15/2005 8:38:50 AM PDT by teldon30
SOON AFTER THE end of the Civil War, as the Confederates streamed home after four bitter years of fighting, a Virginia soldier was heard to say, "They never whipped us, Sir, unless they were four to one. If we had anything like a fair chance, or less disparity of numbers, we should have won our Cause and established our independence."
That defiance, along with the question of why they "whipped us," have continued to this day. Two points stand out: The first is that the war lasted as long as it did, and the second is that the South lost.
That long-ago Virginia veteran expressed the feelings of the entire South: With as many assets as the Confederacy possessed, how could the South possibly have lost?
Its advantages were enormous, starting with a gigantic and contiguous land mass that stretched east to west from the Atlantic to the far reaches of Texas; and south to north from the Gulf of Mexico up to the Ohio River. It was all Confederate, the whole 750,000 square miles of it, a land brimming with natural resources.
The South controlled mile after mile of seacoast, perfect as a source of food; as well as dozens of harbors and coves and inlets and bays and riverbanks, ideal for smuggling and evading the Union blockade they knew was coming. The South also had a dedicated and devoted population that believed passionately in the righteousness of their Cause.
They knew they were facing huge odds--but they looked to their own ancestors, their own fathers and grandfathers, who had fought the British, the mightiest power in the world at the time, and had won their freedom. Why not a second time against a similar oppressor? They even thought they could fight the same war--they could fight defensively, as had the Colonists, knowing that the Union, as the British, would have to invade and occupy, and then destroy their will to resist in order to claim victory.
It didn't work out that way--and over the next several columns, we are going to talk about the reasons the South lost the Civil War. Of course, there is a corollary: If we try to find out why the South lost, we can also learn why the North won.
Truth be told, experts seldom agree on a single reason; they generally list about six overall concepts.
1. The fundamental economic superiority of the North.
2. A basic lack of strategy in the way the South fought the war.
3. The inept Southern performance in foreign affairs.
4. The South did not have a dominating civilian leader.
5. The Confederate Constitution put too much emphasis on individual and states rights and did not stress the responsibilities of the individual or the state to the federal government.
6. Abraham Lincoln.
I'll discuss each of these reasons in upcoming columns, but I am interested in what you think. If you have thoughts about why the South did not win its independence, please mail or e-mail your own reasons about why the South lost--or the North won. I'll print as many opinions as I can.
Confederate President Jefferson Davis and Gen. Robert E. Lee should have known how to fight a winning war of independence. Both were West Point graduates, and had studied how Gen. George Washington had won the Revolutionary War simply by not losing it. It was the best example of the strategy a weaker enemy is forced to use when he fights a larger, better-armed enemy with incomparably better resources, better finances and an ability to prolong a war indefinitely.
Gen. Washington's Rule No. 1: Husband your resources and avoid losing the war.
No. 2: Avoid head-to-head battles that use up your manpower, your most precious asset.
No. 3. Prolong the war.
No. 4. Hope that the enemy would grow heartily sick of the casualties in a war that never seems to end.
There were some other Gen. Washington rules:
No. 5. The Revolution would continue as long as he had the Continental Army, which was the only real power he had.
No. 6. Thus, do not risk the army except in the most dire emergency or when the odds are heavily in your favor.
No. 7. Do not risk the army to defend territory because it is the army that the British have to subdue, not geography.
No. 8. Remember that most of the fighting will be in your territory in geography you know best. Frustrate the British by raids, continual skirmishing, and capturing their supplies, always staying just beyond their ability to defeat you.
These were the rules for victory, and yet neither Davis nor Gen. Lee adopted this "fight-the-war-not-to-win-it-but-to-avoid-losing-it" strategy, even though they knew it was a tried and true road to independence.
Why? Their own ancestors had shown that it worked. In modern times, we have seen it work, too: In World War II, the Russians traded space for time until they could build up their own war-making capability and then go on the offensive.
In the Vietnam War, Ho Chi Minh used it all too well. That war lasted from 1954 to 1975. Ho understood that in order to win a war against more powerful enemies (France, the United States), you have to follow certain rules to lead more powerful enemies into giving up the struggle.
The Vietnam War was a conflict that for us seemed to have no end. Ho's delaying tactics eventually worked: America got sick of a never-ending war that appeared to produce nothing but casualties, and so we made peace with an enemy that had but a fraction of our power. We were the more powerful combatant, yet we gave up the struggle.
The Confederacy never even tried to follow Washington's precepts. Part of the reason is the nature of Southern men. It went counter to the Southern psyche, which was the "attack" strategy for winning any battle. The Confederacy's high command followed their West Point training of "charge" to defeat their enemy. They were convinced that "aggressive attack" was the best and really the only way to win a war.
Could the Washington precepts have worked in the Civil War? We will never know how it would have worked out, but it could not have turned out any worse for the Southern Cause.
No. 1: Husband your resources and avoid losing the war.
They have been expending their resources at a ridiculous rate, like they expect to win the war within 6 months. Now that they are running short of in-house suicide bombers, they must trick foreigners our kidnap families and have the father pay the family ransom with his life. They are not using #1 very well.
No. 2: Avoid head-to-head battles that use up your manpower, your most precious asset.
Why do they think it is wise to hold towns like Falluja?
No. 3. Prolong the war.
It always helps when the media is on your side.
No. 4. Hope that the enemy would grow heartily sick of the casualties in a war that never seems to end.
Employ Cindy Sheehan?
No. 5. The Revolution would continue as long as he had the Continental Army, which was the only real power he had.
There were always new recruits from the people for Continental Army losses. I doubt there are the same amount of recruits from the people of Iraq. Instead they turn to foreigners.
No. 6. Thus, do not risk the army except in the most dire emergency or when the odds are heavily in your favor.
This means they have to be able to achieve a single tactical victory. How killing civilians achieves this, I do not know.
No. 7. Do not risk the army to defend territory because it is the army that the British have to subdue, not geography.
The insurgency has given up their strongholds. Not by their choice though.
No. 8. Remember that most of the fighting will be in your territory in geography you know best. Frustrate the British by raids, continual skirmishing, and capturing their supplies, always staying just beyond their ability to defeat you.
This assumes that your opponent has finite resources and that all you have to do is starve them. Relative to the insurgency, the US has almost infinite resources. Destroy a tank, helicopter, or truck, and a new one will be sent out tomorrow. It doesn't matter how much stuff our ours they destroy, we will always have replacements.
The US entered World War I on April 6, 1917. The major phase of the war ended on 3 October, 1918 with the German surrender (the Austrians held out for another month until November 3d). How could that be construed as "prolonging" the war by "several years"?
yes, slavery as practiced in the South is the worst thing that ever happened in the history of the world or ever will
everything else pales.
feel better now?
Oh, Lord. I should have thought ahead for that one. All I can say in my defense is "Coopers" in Llano. But even honorable men can disagree honestlt.
I guess the Arabs and the Jews, and all those other Europeans that still hold grudges, aren't the only ones that can't move on.
oops, "honestly"
Why don't you review the roster of appeals and district court judges nominated by Bush and approved by the Senate...and tell me how Southern leadership is faring there?
Are we really to believe there are no better qualified southerners than Harriet Miers?
Having the slaves rise up in revolt was also part of the strategery of emancipation.
Don't forget that the US treasury had received an infusion of that evil gold from the California Gold Rush, allowing purchase of foreign goods and services previously not available. And even some of the smallest mining towns here sent troop contingents to fight mainly for the North.
"Are we really to believe there are no better qualified southerners than Harriet Miers?"
Great question. What are the names off hand of who you would suggest?
Even at the beginning of the nation the quakers and such held a big hold on the thought of the northern states where as in the south not so much, its evident in 1793 when a delegation went to congress to attempt to declare slavery illegal led by Benjamin Franklin, even though the constitution forbade such action until 1808.
Of course that event set back the cause of ending slavery until the Civil War when it essentially in compromise made the 1808 provision moot by act of congress and it took an executive order to change it. Of course the problem being was that there was a whole lot of assuming going on, every state north of the potomac assumed slavery was going to end within there lifetimes, and the Virginia dynasty and SC and Georgia saw a wink a nod that it wouldnt end.
The South lost the war because they did not build the canals that would have tied the West to them.
The North did.
Ironic when one considers that the West was all originally Virginia.
Do "Uncle Ho" & General Giap strike a resonant cord? How about Sun Tzu? Fools rush in where angles fear to tread.
Regards,
GtG
PS The South was NEVER defeated, they're just resting up for the next round. (Northern by birth, Texan at heart)
A save your Dixie cups ping.
This is not really the right thread for this, but if we must have an unqualified crony for SCOTUS I would prefer the chief legal council at Halliburton. Cheney probably "knows his heart" and a nomination like that would at least have the benefit of making the left go nuts.
We have, it's just you Yankees are sore winners.
I agree. I think the North won over the South because the North was fighting a moral cause, i.e. a war against slavery. Say what you want about "states rights" and all the other political stuff, but it was about slavery.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.