Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why the South lost the Civil War
http://fredericksburg.com/ ^ | 10/15/2005 | NED HARRISON

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.


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: americanhistory; civilwar; dixie; southernvalor
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 241-255 next last
To: Fee
That is progress for the North. In the first two years of the war, if Lee can get the Union army to start running, the conscript soldier usually kept running. Gettysburg (1863) was the first battle in the Eastern Theater that the Union soldiers ran, but stopped and rallied.

The problem with this theory is that conscription in the North didn't start until late summer of 1863, and was pretty much a failure. Only about 6% of the Union Army was made up of conscripts. By 1865, on the other hand, about a quarter of the confederate army were draftees.

161 posted on 10/15/2005 11:16:34 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: onyx

You're welcome. Speaking of lunch, it's nearly 11:30 here. Time for me to go get something productive done with this Saturday. ;-)


162 posted on 10/15/2005 11:17:02 AM PDT by Wolfstar (The reactionaries' favorite short list are all judges GWB appointed to the appellate bench.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Scarpetta
I've read that Lincoln was angry that Meade didn't pursue Lee and allowed him to get away from Gettysburg. As a result, we had two more years of war.

An accurate statement. But in fairness to Meade, I can't think of a single time where Lee pursued a defeated Union army either.

163 posted on 10/15/2005 11:21:25 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: tbpiper
Well, there were the bloody anti-draft riots in New York.

If you get a chance, read The Gangs of New York by Herbert Asbury. The major "anti-draft" riot in NYC was actually an excuse for the gangsters who ran the poor parts of town to attempt to take and ransack the whole city.

164 posted on 10/15/2005 11:21:58 AM PDT by Zeroisanumber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: trek
Tariffs that enriched Northern merchants at the expense of Southerners galvanized opposition to the Union much more than the right of rich plantation owners to hold slaves.

OK, so what was it that the south was importing in such massive quantities that the tariffs unfairly impacted them?

165 posted on 10/15/2005 11:22:40 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: tertiary01
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.

The California gold rush peaked 12 years before the beginning of the rebellion. They were called '49rs', remember?

166 posted on 10/15/2005 11:26:44 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Texas Songwriter
Paul Johnson, in A History of the American People", affirms the fact that slavery was always a contentious issue from the time of the original colonies.
He also asserts that the south would have won the War of NOrthern Aggression had the gin and harvester been deveoped just a decade or two earlier, thus enabling the South to develope its economy to a greater extent.
With mechanization, the proslavery proponents would have not held tightly to he notion of 'chatel' slavery as it was the singular blot on American idealism.

Had the South had 20 years to developes its infrastructure and economy, there is little doubt that the south would have prevailed, according to Paul Johnson.

Had the South had 20 years to develop its infrastructure and economy, and started to abandon slavery, what reasons would there have been to rebel? --- According to Paul Johnson, what was the basis for the rebellion?

167 posted on 10/15/2005 11:29:02 AM PDT by faireturn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: trek
Its just one of many ways modern elites poke southerners in the eye.

Do you "Rebels" want an apology from the federal government and an "interpretative and contemplative" display at the Smithsonian done by revisionist, socialist, history professors to tell your side? Sure sounds like it.

168 posted on 10/15/2005 11:30:20 AM PDT by elbucko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: trek
Civil War: War between geographical sections or political factions of the same nation. {emphasis mine}

OK, how about a rebellion, which Merriam-Webster defines as "open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government"? That more accurate?

169 posted on 10/15/2005 11:31:03 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Morgan's Raider

I undersdtand that he did not scout the battle field as he often did, but relied on other pairs of eyes.


170 posted on 10/15/2005 11:34:20 AM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: TR Jeffersonian

wbts ping


171 posted on 10/15/2005 11:41:04 AM PDT by kalee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

You are correct!


172 posted on 10/15/2005 11:41:57 AM PDT by Irish_Thatcherite (~~~A vote for Bertie Ahern is a vote for Gerry Adams!~~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Morgan's Raider
I've read that General Lee was suffering from dysentery during the Battle of Gettysburg - not good in July heat. He was probably dehydrated )(which can manifest itself into heart problems).

Lee's health at Gettysburg was no better and no worse than it had been 8 weeks earlier at Chancellorsville.

173 posted on 10/15/2005 11:42:07 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Gandalf_The_Gray

I'm more of a Lincoln man than a Davis man!


174 posted on 10/15/2005 11:43:00 AM PDT by Irish_Thatcherite (~~~A vote for Bertie Ahern is a vote for Gerry Adams!~~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: gobucks

If you do not want to be compared to Farrakhan, you should not think and act like him, which you are.

When you smear dozens of sincere principled conservatives as anti-southern evangelical bigots, you are acting like Farrakhan, who smeared whites as somehow scheming to flood New Orleans to kill black people. It would be bad enough for you to smear one person in this way, but you manage to smear every conservative with a principled concern about a candidate with no documented judicial philosophy.

Both your theory and Farrakhan's, involve hallucatinatory, slanderous allegations of bigotry. Both theories serve only to forment hatred.

What would you think if someone alleged that Bush nominated Mier's precisely because she was a southern Evanglical SMU grad like his wife? Discriminating in favor of these things? It's a mirror image of your argument, quite ugly isn't it? Hallucinating discrimination, and impugning the motives of others, is a terrible thing.


175 posted on 10/15/2005 11:44:05 AM PDT by Mount Athos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: gobucks

Numerous references in history...Just google marx lincoln and you will find lots of information.


176 posted on 10/15/2005 11:49:26 AM PDT by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Fee
That is progress for the North. In the first two years of the war, if Lee can get the Union army to start running, the conscript soldier usually kept running. Gettysburg (1863) was the first battle in the Eastern Theater that the Union soldiers ran, but stopped and rallied.

Surely you jest.

For starters, the Union didn't institute a draft until the summer of '63. The early war Yanks were all volunteers. The confederates had a draft from the fall of '61 forward, and it was a great advantage because it stabilized their order of battle and enabled them to keep veteran units up to strength. The Yanks, on the other hand, bled their veteran outfits white while the politicians back home raised brand new units that had to climb an entirely unnecessary learning curve. Think what it meant for whole regiments -- whose men had been in the army all of two weeks, had never fired their weapons, and barely knew the manual of arms -- to be thrown into places like the East Woods and the Miller Cornfield at Antietam. The insanity of the personnel system is not a reflection on the men.

That said, the only example of a Union army collapsing in defeat was First Manassas, where a force of 90 day militia -- whose march discipline was very poor on the trek out from Washington -- dissolved into straggling on the way back. Btw, that force, untrained though it was, still very nearly won the battle. It executed a long and tiring flank march, broke the initial confederate position, and very nearly stormed the second before the fortuitous arrival of reinforcements squarely on their flank forced them to withdraw. Even then, they were not broken on the battlefield; they simply lost organization on the march back to Washington, which was unpursued because the equally raw confederates were just as disorganized in victory.

What other examples of "running conscript Yanks" do you want to propose? Chancellorsville? Sure, the 11th Corps broke, having been flanked and being in an entirely untenable position. But if you think the Yanks didn't rally, you've never walked Hazel Grove and seen the back-to-back gun emplacements. Joe Hooker lost that battle, not his troops; aside from the 11th Corps, whose misdeployment left it no chance at all, the Yanks stood their ground at every turn.

Fredericksburg? There was nothing at all wrong with the Yanks who walked up Marye's Heights. There was a lot wrong the the commanders who ordered them to.

Antietam? Yanks won that one, sort of.

Seven Days? Apart from Gaines Mill, Lee lost every battle and McClellan withdrew after every Union victory.

Valley Campaign? The confederates won that through marching more than fighting. Jackson had the only good map of the Valley and the federals he opposed, while outnumbering him in the aggregate, were drawn from three separate military divisions (the Valley being a transitional zone on the federal organizational map), had three separate chains of command and lines of supply, and never managed to cooperate.

Western Theater? There the federal commenced to win early and often, which is why the West is such a perfect counterpoint to the war in Virginia -- and why it tends to be ignored by Lost Cause mythologists.

Now, to answer the question posed by the thread. The confederates, informed by the example of the Revolution, thought the sheer size of the South would defeat any federal attempts at occupation and control, provided the Southern population remained resolute. They might have been right 50 or 100 years earlier, but they reckoned without the railroad and the telegraph, which gave the Yankee invaders strategic mobility, logistical staying power, and command and control over continental distances. New ballgame.

177 posted on 10/15/2005 11:50:56 AM PDT by sphinx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

The Gold Rush peaked in the mid 1850's, but hard rock mining took up the slack and gold mining continues to this day. 100 million (in 1860 dollars) in gold went to the Feds just from my little area of the Sierras.


178 posted on 10/15/2005 11:51:26 AM PDT by tertiary01 (For every Act of God, the Libs will demand a human sacrifice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: cynicom
If you are a student of history...Karl Marx was an enthusiastic supporter of Lincoln, he even had spies serving in the Northern Army.

Marx's admiration for Lincoln was not reciprocated, and isn't surprising. Would you expect Marx to side with the slave owners?

179 posted on 10/15/2005 11:52:14 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: tertiary01
The Gold Rush peaked in the mid 1850's, but hard rock mining took up the slack and gold mining continues to this day. 100 million (in 1860 dollars) in gold went to the Feds just from my little area of the Sierras.

True, but there is nothing to suggest that there was a sudden burst in gold output in California that helped pay for the war.

180 posted on 10/15/2005 11:53:59 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 241-255 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson