the reason the south lost the war

[callum98]

i think the south lost because the union had more money to support their troops.the union lost some battles but the south were never strong enough to win. they lost because they were short of money and supplies and key generals died. if stonewall jackson wasnt killed the south would have more morale

[JLongstreetFan]

Gettysburg was the beginning of the end for the South. From my reading, Lee genuinely was a good man and a great military hero. However, I believe that his pride (mostly in his soldiers) destroyed the south. Had Lee listened to Longstreet, the south may well have won the battle at Gettysburg and maybe even the war.

Lee sycophants such as General Early branded Longstreet a traitor for disagreeing with Lee. Most were military leaders of marginal competence. They should ask George Pickett who was right. One of the last recorded comments by Pickett after a post-war visit to Lee: "That man destroyed my division."

One last thought. Perhaps I will post this on another section of the forum. Pundits and civil war buffs over the years have ascribed to the typical southern man such noble character (a model of R.E. Lee?); Though not burned in ovens or used in scientific experiments, slaves were not treated much better than Jews in Nazi Germany. "Look away, look away look away, Dixieland"?

Just my own reflections.


Matt

[kepgeek]

I will agree with General Sherman when he said, "You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it… Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth—right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail."

[soonerfan]

I agree with "Sharpshooter" that while Sherman proved a moderately able commander of battle (emphazising moderately), to take any drunkard or failures (Sherman) word to heart on political theory is absurd. The South's loss was a result of their cause. By that i mean that as advocates for states rights the were unwilling to bond together. Think for a moment, if Jefferson Davis would have had the power of Abramham Lincoln what would have happened.

[doormail11]

i think the south lost because the union had more money to support their troops.the union lost some battles but the south were never strong enough to win. they lost because they were short of money and supplies and key generals died. if stonewall jackson wasnt killed the south would have more morale

i do agree to all that. but you left out a key point, the civil war was basically a war of attrition. with the union being able to continually replace men (from the immigrants that were coming in), the south just bled out. also when the emancipation proclamation was announced, many slaves escaped hurting both the southern economy and the war effort. finally, the southern draft (created by davis) created controversy among the southerners stating that the war was "a rich man's war, a poor man's fight."

[stonewall1992]

Gettysburg was the beginning of the end for the South. From my reading, Lee genuinely was a good man and a great military hero. However, I believe that his pride (mostly in his soldiers) destroyed the south. Had Lee listened to Longstreet, the south may well have won the battle at Gettysburg and maybe even the war.

Lee sycophants such as General Early branded Longstreet a traitor for disagreeing with Lee. Most were military leaders of marginal competence. They should ask George Pickett who was right. One of the last recorded comments by Pickett after a post-war visit to Lee: "That man destroyed my division."

One last thought. Perhaps I will post this on another section of the forum. Pundits and civil war buffs over the years have ascribed to the typical southern man such noble character (a model of R.E. Lee?); Though not burned in ovens or used in scientific experiments, slaves were not treated much better than Jews in Nazi Germany. "Look away, look away look away, Dixieland"?

Just my own reflections.


Matt

I believe that the actual beginning of the end for the Confederacy was Antietam. The Army of Northern Virginia was invading the north with a high morale and was slowly being chased by the Army of the Potomac. We all know that Mcclellan was a slow moving commander and was in possesion of Lees plans for two whole days before taking action. Had Lee not lost those plans i believe that with the element of suprise Lee could have won a major victory on Northern soil. I also believe that in turn the Confederacy would have gained a foriegn ally possibly with Britain. This intervention would turn the tide in the war and probably make a Confederate victory in the Civil War. However the Union "victory" (I say victory because it really was a draw. However the Union did repel an invasion of the north) allowed Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclemation which turned the war to preserve the Union into a war for the emancipation of slaves. This scared away all of the foriegn powers which left the Confederacy without any possible allies. With out this the Confederacy could not compete with Northern factories or man power.

[m44]

i do somewhat agree with you. I do agree that if Stonewall did not die then the south would have a overwhelming amount of morale on their side. Stonewall was one of the most feared Generals because of what he did. Indeed the south was short on their money and supplies due to the blockade off of all the southern ports.
But I disagree that the south wasn't weak to win the war. The southerners were stronger in morale than the Union big time, the south had the better educated and trained Generals and the men they had would give their last full measure to fight and defend while the congressmen up in Washington sat down around a table and told these people to go get 10,000 men from Maine and New Hampshire and replace them within a year or so. (Don't take that seriously). But the Union soldiers didn't even really care about the war at all! It was Lincoln basiclly that was all over it. but believe me, the south got lucky at times and even more the Union got even luckier with all the downfalls to the Confederacy. without those all those downfalls, the Confederates would have won the war.

Union soldiers did care about the war, in mass and many other states there was more volunteer regiments than there was drafted ones.

[BDW1964]

In my studied opinion, the South ultimately lost due to five main causes. These being:

* The CSA (executive) implemented a bad strategic plan. Instead of taking advantage of interior lines of communication and then concentrating against main threats, the CSA instead implemented a spread out defense, effectively tying up huge amounts of manpower, equipment and money in garrisoning a +- 3,000 mile border. This effectively meant that large segments of the military forces of the Confederacy were not actively engaging Union forces for the majority of the time. Net results of this strategic policy are exemplified by the losses at the Siege of Vicksburg, where an entire army was taken out, trying to statically defend a city.

* While neither side had an effective strategic command and control system early in the war, the Union did try and implement one in 1862. That system did not become effective until 1864, when US Grant assumed supreme command of all Union forces and could plan coordinated, strategic operations. Not until 1865, when the war was essentially over, with the Confederacy reduced to a rump of Virginia and North Carolina, did the CSA appoint RE Lee to command of all CSA forces. By then it was too late.

* In line with the above, the CSA also had to deal with a president, who tried to micro-manage the military efforts and constantly interfered with commanders; much more so than Lincoln did with the Union commanders. Davis tended to appoint and support sycophants, even when it was clear they were not effective commanders. Examples are Braxton Bragg.

* As Davis himself wrote, "If the Confederacy falls, there should be written on its tombstone: DIED OF A THEORY." While he was talking specifically about the fight in the CSA Congress about raising black troops, it really has a better application in the macro theory supporting the CSA's position of 'States Rights'. In hindsight, we now understand that in a mechanized war, covering large theaters of operation, unified command is required. What happened in the CSA is that unified command (political and military), never was implemented. In fact, when the national (CSA government) tried to implement unified command and control, several Confederate states outright refused to comply and in fact, there was direct rebellion of state officials to the national government and several national CSA officials abandoned their posts over disagreements (Alexander Stephens, etc.).

* Finally, even though the South invoked the memory of the American Revolution and claimed to be inheritors of that tradition, they distinctly did not adopt the strategic and tactical policies that had been used by the founders in the revolution. In the American Revolution, Washington and his generals and the Continental Government, never tied themselves to one location or the static defense of one location. They learned their lesson early in the Battle of New York. Washington's strategy was to never let his army be destroyed, and this informed his tactics. Instead of fighting head on battles with a superior foe, he and his generals fought small battles, ran away and fought another day. Eventually, they wore down the will and resources of the enemy to continue the war, gain recognition and assistance, and won independence. Instead, in the Civil War, Lee's army specifically was tied to defending Richmond at all costs, a city <>100 miles from Washington DC. That strategic goal of defending a fixed position (Richmond), ultimately led the Army of Northern Virginia to be locked into a siege, not unlike Cornwallis was at Yorktown. It can be argued that the same strategy of defending Vicksburg and Atlanta, also led to the collapse.

The fact that the Confederacy held out for four years has a lot to do with the leadership of RE Lee and his lieutenants, the inexperience of the northern people (after losing so many professionals to the South), the plain lack of clear strategic policies of the north, and the inept commanders the Union fielded, especially in the eastern theater of the war.

[Civil W@r Guy]

You guys are over analyzing this way too much. It's because they lacked the generals to replace fallen ones and didn't have the man power or production ability to maintain an army that was in the field.

[upsellava]

what is it with these ill wishes toward southern sudanese? why cant you guys let these beleaguered people alone. exact who is going to fight who in this hypathetical civil war that would follow soon after south secession? and what do you should be done to avod this certain civil war in the independent south? what is this civil war going to be worst than the one south has been in? so according to you dooms day prophets, would the choice of unity be the best choice for the south?

[daltonlegaleagle]

There seemed to be a lot more Yankees than Rebels. That appears to have been the primary reason for the North's victory. Anyone who has ever played the game "Risk" understands the principle that the player who builds up his force the largest and quickest typically wins provided that their side maintains the will to see it through.

While the Lee/Jackson Campaigns added excitement and drama, and arguably lengthened the war, they also drained the South's small supply of manpower as well. The Germans and Japanese tried this approach in early aggressive offensive maneuvers in WWII against a larger foe without winning in the end, as well, although Germany certainly tested the world's will to stop its aggressiveness in the unfortunate extreme.

The two times in the past 200+ years that the underdog won was the Americans in the Revolutionary War and the North Vietnamese in Vietnam. Both times, the smaller force employed a bend but don't break strategy. Both times, the smaller force played a delaying action designed to not lose while the larger force's side lost the will to carry out the war. Arguably, the South's only realistic chance to win the war was to carry out a war implementing the Fabian Policy of delay and fall backs without risking an all-out battle, even using guerilla-style tactics, something that the Aristocratic leaders such as Lee and Davis were unprepared or simply unable to consider.

In the end, however, the North had far greater reasons to continue the war, the preservation of the Union and the Abolition of slavery, than the English in the American Revolution and the Americans in Vietnam had. So, in my opinion, the South was doomed regardless of which military strategy they decided to employ.

[Electron]

In 1865 when Sherman went on his rampage through the Carolinas, Confederate armies practically dissolved overnight due to the high rate of desertions by people wanting to check on their families in the path or wake of destruction. Joseph Johnston couldn't possibly have defeated Sherman's army, let alone even one of his columns. Meanwhile, Grant had a choke hold on Lee and Sherman was approaching fast to cut off his last avenue of escape. When negotiations were taking place near Raleigh, Johnston and Sherman received word that President Lincoln was murdered. Had the war continued, it would have been much, much worse for the south.