Why the Confederacy Lost (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message


parusski -> Why the Confederacy Lost (9/13/2014 4:08:49 PM)

An excellent essay by Mackubin Thomas Owens, Associate Dean of Academics for Electives and Directed Research and Professor of Strategy and Force Planning for the Naval War College and contributing editor to National Review.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/387546/why-confederacy-lost-mackubin-thomas-owens




warspite1 -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/13/2014 4:14:46 PM)

Excellent thanks for sharing. I just can't get into big tomes about the subject at present so this type of article really helps.




parusski -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/13/2014 4:19:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Excellent thanks for sharing. I just can't get into big tomes about the subject at present so this type of article really helps.



Same here. Owens writes a lot of essays on the topic of war that appear in National Review.




AbwehrX -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/14/2014 8:00:49 PM)

quote:

In addition, the areas that would have been abandoned had the South pursued a Fabian strategy were precisely the areas the Confederacy needed most if it were to have a realistic chance for independence — Virginia and Tennessee. As Joseph Harsh has observed, “for a nation successfully to pursue a strategy of defense it needed a large, rich heartland into which it could withdraw. Unfortunately for the South, its heart was located on its frontier.” And without Virginia, there was no viable Confederacy.

There were also political and social reasons that the Confederacy could not have pursued a Fabian or guerrilla strategy. First, the citizens of the Confederacy would never have tolerated a strategy based on a policy of ceding large swaths of territory to the hated invader. Second, a Fabian approach would have involved a social revolution, because it would have required the abandonment of the slave-based plantation system, which of course was the cause for which the South was willing to break up the Union and fight a war.

It seems to me that there was no better strategy for the South to follow than the one it did — organizing its forces into field armies to confront the armies of the Union, and giving priority to the best of these armies: Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia. Had Lee achieved the sort of victory he sought — the destruction of a Union army, especially on northern soil — the South might well have achieved its independence. And the fact is that Lee came extraordinarily close on more than one occasion.


There was another option that was readily available that nobody considered that involved Imperial Europe and wouldve thrown half the continent into chaos. Returning the Carolinas, Georgia and part of Virginia to England, the Louisiana Purchase including Yankee territory to France, Florida to Spain and California, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, the Dakotas and Montana to Mexico. In other words threaten the North most by inviting half the world into North America to force them to negotiate or else. The North wasnt anywhere near capable of fighting all of Europe and the South simultaneously and European fleets were more than a match for the North. I'd like to see that as an option in several CW games.





Twotribes -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/14/2014 10:15:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AbwehrX

quote:

In addition, the areas that would have been abandoned had the South pursued a Fabian strategy were precisely the areas the Confederacy needed most if it were to have a realistic chance for independence — Virginia and Tennessee. As Joseph Harsh has observed, “for a nation successfully to pursue a strategy of defense it needed a large, rich heartland into which it could withdraw. Unfortunately for the South, its heart was located on its frontier.” And without Virginia, there was no viable Confederacy.

There were also political and social reasons that the Confederacy could not have pursued a Fabian or guerrilla strategy. First, the citizens of the Confederacy would never have tolerated a strategy based on a policy of ceding large swaths of territory to the hated invader. Second, a Fabian approach would have involved a social revolution, because it would have required the abandonment of the slave-based plantation system, which of course was the cause for which the South was willing to break up the Union and fight a war.

It seems to me that there was no better strategy for the South to follow than the one it did — organizing its forces into field armies to confront the armies of the Union, and giving priority to the best of these armies: Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia. Had Lee achieved the sort of victory he sought — the destruction of a Union army, especially on northern soil — the South might well have achieved its independence. And the fact is that Lee came extraordinarily close on more than one occasion.


There was another option that was readily available that nobody considered that involved Imperial Europe and wouldve thrown half the continent into chaos. Returning the Carolinas, Georgia and part of Virginia to England, the Louisiana Purchase including Yankee territory to France, Florida to Spain and California, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, the Dakotas and Montana to Mexico. In other words threaten the North most by inviting half the world into North America to force them to negotiate or else. The North wasnt anywhere near capable of fighting all of Europe and the South simultaneously and European fleets were more than a match for the North. I'd like to see that as an option in several CW games.



So Georgia North and South Carolina and Virginia would VOLUNTARILY allow themselves to be ruled by Britain? What world do you live in? Georgia for one wouldn't even allow the Confederacy to recruit in Georgia and refused repeatedly to allow it's State's troops to aid any other State.
Ya I imagine Florida would have gladly have joined Spain as well. There were only 11 States in the Confederacy and you just said they should have given 5 of them away. As for the rest they did not control them. Mexico was not even a third rate power being ruled for most of the Civil War by France.




AbwehrX -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/14/2014 11:23:02 PM)

It wouldve no doubt been unorthodox and compromises made but by the end of 1863 the South was so imperiled that a diplomatic ploy to that extreme wouldve set panic in the North. The South needed a new idea just to survive since the notion of Lee's toe-to-toe strategy wasnt working.




DanSez -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/15/2014 2:19:34 AM)

After a long span of reading from age 15 to now 57 I have come to the very simple reason the South lost the war.

They did not have the strong Centralized Government needed wage more than regional combat.
This allowed the North to work to their strengths in a strategic way to carve up and destroy the South piecemeal.

They lost because they would not/could not embrace the very thing they were afraid of and vowed to fight against.

Ironic, isn't it...

(spelling edit)




parusski -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/15/2014 10:26:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DanSez

After a long span of reading from age 15 to now 57 I have come to the very simple reason the South lost the war.

They did not have the strong Centralized Government needed wage more than regional combat.
This allowed the North to work to their strengths in a strategic way to carve up and destroy the South piecemeal.

They lost because they would not/count not embrace the very thing they were afraid of and vowed to fight against.

Ironic, isn't it...

(spelling edit)


You just offered one of the simplest reason for Confederate defeat. Also, the North was a monster waiting to wake(just like America in WWII). As Shelby Foote said: "I think that the North fought that war with one hand behind its back. At the same time the war was going on, the Homestead act was being passed, all these marvelous inventions were going on... If there had been more Southern victories, and a lot more, the North simply would have brought that other hand out from behind its back. I don't think the South ever had a chance to win that War."




AbwehrX -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/15/2014 1:30:20 PM)

quote:

You just offered one of the simplest reason for Confederate defeat. Also, the North was a monster waiting to wake(just like America in WWII). As Shelby Foote said: "I think that the North fought that war with one hand behind its back. At the same time the war was going on, the Homestead act was being passed, all these marvelous inventions were going on... If there had been more Southern victories, and a lot more, the North simply would have brought that other hand out from behind its back. I don't think the South ever had a chance to win that War."


The South alone had a slim chance to win but if they had allied with Europe then the North wouldve been in serious trouble. Diplomacy was their only real chance to achieve some degree of independence from the North.




wings7 -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/15/2014 2:04:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski

An excellent essay by Mackubin Thomas Owens, Associate Dean of Academics for Electives and Directed Research and Professor of Strategy and Force Planning for the Naval War College and contributing editor to National Review.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/387546/why-confederacy-lost-mackubin-thomas-owens


Excellent!




freeboy -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/15/2014 5:25:33 PM)

I agree with the posts about the fantasy of a southern threat...
Great in a board game but in real life threatening the North with European ownership is silly. Remember it was a States type of government where all the day to day governing was at a state level....
The USA of 1861 looked nothing like anything we have seen after the war and especially today.
So, these States, each an individual entity that was loosely coordinated into a nation, would never think of bringing in a European over lord... Not even remotely possible.




DanSez -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/15/2014 8:46:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski

... the North was a monster waiting to wake(just like America in WWII). As Shelby Foote said: "I think that the North fought that war with one hand behind its back. At the same time the war was going on, the Homestead act was being passed, all these marvelous inventions were going on... If there had been more Southern victories, and a lot more, the North simply would have brought that other hand out from behind its back. I don't think the South ever had a chance to win that War."


Great quote.
There is too much evidence that the Confederacy was too divisive to capitalize on what slim chance there was to gain independence. I love war games and historical sims and playing "what if" but the reality of books like "Starving the South: How the North Won the Civil War" by Andrew F Smith will drive home the unequal tide of wealth, organization and ultimately National Will.





aaatoysandmore -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/15/2014 9:06:12 PM)

The confederacy lost because Lee wouldn't move around to the right at Gettysburg. They were so close to victory an that one mistake cost them the war. (Now I know Twotribes will be here shortly to rebuttal me on this lol)




parusski -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/15/2014 9:13:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DanSez


quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski

... the North was a monster waiting to wake(just like America in WWII). As Shelby Foote said: "I think that the North fought that war with one hand behind its back. At the same time the war was going on, the Homestead act was being passed, all these marvelous inventions were going on... If there had been more Southern victories, and a lot more, the North simply would have brought that other hand out from behind its back. I don't think the South ever had a chance to win that War."


Great quote.
There is too much evidence that the Confederacy was too divisive to capitalize on what slim chance there was to gain independence. I love war games and historical sims and playing "what if" but the reality of books like "Starving the South: How the North Won the Civil War" by Andrew F Smith will drive home the unequal tide of wealth, organization and ultimately National Will.




Exactly. And that is just what Foote stated so elegantly.




Joe D. -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/15/2014 10:24:07 PM)

"Was the cause of Confederate defeat external, or internal?"

Internally, didn't Jeff Davis want to wage a defensive war for both moral and political reasons, while Lee thought that Richmond was best defended when it was left unguarded, e.g., when Lee was off on the offensive.




AbwehrX -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/16/2014 1:24:32 AM)

quote:

I agree with the posts about the fantasy of a southern threat...
Great in a board game but in real life threatening the North with European ownership is silly. Remember it was a States type of government where all the day to day governing was at a state level....
The USA of 1861 looked nothing like anything we have seen after the war and especially today.
So, these States, each an individual entity that was loosely coordinated into a nation, would never think of bringing in a European over lord... Not even remotely possible.

They didnt need to subordinate all Southern states to a European overlord, just some of them if the North was to be intimidated into negotiating. They couldnt hold everything anyway and some Confederate officers knew that so they wouldnt have had that much more to lose considering their military chances at best were slim.




danlongman -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/16/2014 1:55:19 AM)

The Confederacy lost because the entire dialectic of history was against them.
Plus the North had a whole lot more of everything needed to fight modern war.
Both sides had courage aplenty but the South had everything else imaginable weighing against their success.
"The Lost Cause" was hopeless from the beginning and starting the War was probably foolish and irresponsible.
It certainly was short sighted.




Capt. Harlock -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/16/2014 2:05:22 AM)

The Confederacy lost because Stonewall Jackson broke OpSec and made a copy of Special Orders 191. (I'm more serious than you think -- read James M. McPherson's "If The Lost Order Hadn't Been Lost" in the excellent book "The Collected What If?", edited by Robert Cowley.)
http://www.amazon.com/Collected-Eminent-Historians-Imagine-Might/dp/0399152385/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=undefined&sr=1-2&keywords=what+if+robert+cowley




gradenko2k -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/16/2014 4:29:31 AM)

The ACW always struck me as being more reminiscent of the Pacific campaign of WW2 than anything else in terms of how much of an uneven fight it was, logistically, with perhaps the key difference that a lack of a "Pearl Harbor" meant that the Confederacy had an outside chance of scoring a negotiated political peace.




fvianello -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/16/2014 9:34:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski


quote:

ORIGINAL: DanSez

After a long span of reading from age 15 to now 57 I have come to the very simple reason the South lost the war.

They did not have the strong Centralized Government needed wage more than regional combat.
This allowed the North to work to their strengths in a strategic way to carve up and destroy the South piecemeal.

They lost because they would not/count not embrace the very thing they were afraid of and vowed to fight against.

Ironic, isn't it...

(spelling edit)


You just offered one of the simplest reason for Confederate defeat. Also, the North was a monster waiting to wake(just like America in WWII). As Shelby Foote said: "I think that the North fought that war with one hand behind its back. At the same time the war was going on, the Homestead act was being passed, all these marvelous inventions were going on... If there had been more Southern victories, and a lot more, the North simply would have brought that other hand out from behind its back. I don't think the South ever had a chance to win that War."


+1




Trugrit -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/16/2014 2:12:19 PM)

You might find this lecture interesting.
Program is about 2 hours long.

The second lecture is about southern war strategy.
http://series.c-span.org/History/Events/The-Civil-War-Battle-of-Stones-River/10737436630-1/






Curtis Lemay -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/16/2014 7:09:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski

"I think that the North fought that war with one hand behind its back. At the same time the war was going on, the Homestead act was being passed, all these marvelous inventions were going on... If there had been more Southern victories, and a lot more, the North simply would have brought that other hand out from behind its back. I don't think the South ever had a chance to win that War."


Even though this is Shelby Foote, I would take issue with it. It wouldn't just be an issue of producing more force, it would also involve stomaching more losses - maybe a lot more.

Suppose the South got British intervention, including the RN. No more blockade means better economics within the South, means fewer desertions, means stronger Southern armies - and that means a lot more losses have to be suffered to get to Appomattox.




Twotribes -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/16/2014 7:37:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski

"I think that the North fought that war with one hand behind its back. At the same time the war was going on, the Homestead act was being passed, all these marvelous inventions were going on... If there had been more Southern victories, and a lot more, the North simply would have brought that other hand out from behind its back. I don't think the South ever had a chance to win that War."


Even though this is Shelby Foote, I would take issue with it. It wouldn't just be an issue of producing more force, it would also involve stomaching more losses - maybe a lot more.

Suppose the South got British intervention, including the RN. No more blockade means better economics within the South, means fewer desertions, means stronger Southern armies - and that means a lot more losses have to be suffered to get to Appomattox.

Remind me how many sea going Ironclads the British had?




Twotribes -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/16/2014 7:44:12 PM)

The Idea that the States of Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia would have turned even a part of their State over to a foreign power is ludicrous, the ENTIRE reason they left the Union was slavery and supposedly States rights. Last I checked Britain, France, Spain and Mexico had all outlawed slavery and would have simply replaced the US control for their own.




Curtis Lemay -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/16/2014 9:09:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Remind me how many sea going Ironclads the British had?


Warrior 1861
Black Prince 1861
Defence 1861
Resistance 1861
Royal Oak 1863
Hector 1864
Valiant 1864
Royal Sovereign 1864
Prince Consort 1864
Caledonia 1864
Ocean 1864
Research 1864
Enterprise 1864
Achilles 1864
Scorpion 1865
Wivern 1865

And the blockade was manned by wooden warships. To conduct that blockade, the North needed naval supremacy - they wouldn't even have had parity.




AbwehrX -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/16/2014 9:33:20 PM)

quote:

The Idea that the States of Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia would have turned even a part of their State over to a foreign power is ludicrous, Last I checked Britain, France, Spain and Mexico had all outlawed slavery and would have simply replaced the US control for their own.

I agree that the odds were against the idea but considering they were only militarily capable of holding maybe a third of their original territory then the very threat of handing over 2/3's of their states might have made the Yankees think twice about prosecuting the war. Their only real chance of an independent South was to reduce their front lines to a Fabian defense and reach out for powerful allies. They failed miserably to do so and they failed militarily so the diplomatic option was the only way to achieve a realistic goal.

quote:

the ENTIRE reason they left the Union was slavery and supposedly States rights

Not really. Most Southerners did not own slaves so most were not fighting for that. They just simply opposed what they considered a dictatorship of Yankees. The north however wasnt going to allow the Union to be divided regardless of the issues at hand because it disrupted their Manifest Destiny agenda.




Toby42 -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/16/2014 9:49:30 PM)

I don't think that Britain would recognize the Confederacy because of slavery. It was outlawed in Britain, I think?




aaatoysandmore -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/16/2014 10:06:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Remind me how many sea going Ironclads the British had?


Warrior 1861
Black Prince 1861
Defence 1861
Resistance 1861
Royal Oak 1863
Hector 1864
Valiant 1864
Royal Sovereign 1864
Prince Consort 1864
Caledonia 1864
Ocean 1864
Research 1864
Enterprise 1864
Achilles 1864
Scorpion 1865
Wivern 1865

And the blockade was manned by wooden warships. To conduct that blockade, the North needed naval supremacy - they wouldn't even have had parity.


Lol Twotribes.....rebuttal??? [:'(]




danlongman -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/16/2014 11:15:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Treale

I don't think that Britain would recognize the Confederacy because of slavery. It was outlawed in Britain, I think?



Slavery outlawed in the UK in 1833, in France 1848. The USA was rather behind the times on this one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Africa_Squadron




AbwehrX -> RE: Why the Confederacy Lost (9/16/2014 11:30:08 PM)

quote:

I don't think that Britain would recognize the Confederacy because of slavery. It was outlawed in Britain, I think?

They might not have had to recognize them. The Confederacy was simply way over-extended and by 1863 were under serious pressure to sustain the war. Only a diplomatic coup couldve prevented total collapse and offering land to US rivals like France, Spain and England wouldve narrowed the front dramatically. What else could they have done?




Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.985352