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.
Reloading...
Reloading...
Great post teldon30. This is a bookmark for sure.
I guess i could have squeezed elitist yankees in there somewhere! ;)
Have you ever noticed this?"
These are USSC justices since 1949. The last white protestant southerner appointed appears to be Clark. He was the father of Ramsey Clark btw....(Fortas was from Tennessee but he was Jewish).
Clark, Tom Campbell Texas
Minton, Sherman Indiana
Harlan, John Marshall New York
Brennan, William J., Jr. New Jersey
Whittaker, Charles Evans Missouri
Stewart, Potter Ohio
White, Byron Raymond Colorado
Goldberg, Arthur Joseph Illinois
Fortas, Abe Tennessee
Marshall, Thurgood New York
Blackmun, Harry A. Minnesota
Powell, Lewis F., Jr. Virginia
Rehnquist, William H. Arizona
Stevens, John Paul Illinois
O’Connor, Sandra Day Arizona
Scalia, Antonin Virginia
Kennedy, Anthony M. California
Souter, David H. New Hampshire
Thomas, Clarence Georgia
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader New York
Breyer, Stephen G. Massachusetts
Meirs is a white protestant southerner. This is the real reason, just like all the reasons associated with why the South was defeated, that you don't see much discussion in the MSM about why she is so hated by 'Conservatives'.
We have a winner!
ping to #8...re Miers..
Having read "A Stillness At Appomattox", I'm amazed at the ineptness and cowardice of the Union conscript. Several battles seem to have been won by a Union officer rallying the troops at the last moment, when all seemed lost. And most of those officers appear to have come from the MidWest, not the North.
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.
Precisely the rules Michael Collins used in the Irish War of Independence!
No, the South lost because they couldn't control the borders. ;-)
bump
Amazing isn't it? The Midwesterners were backwoodsmen, farmers and tough as nails. The "Westerners" got the job done. The Army of the West kept the Union in the War. Grant, Sherman and many other generals were from Ohio and further west.
My view is that the Southrens have the Yankees right where they want 'em. Why even the Northerners are fed up with the extra-constitutional overreaching from Washington. This will go down as the greatest rope-a-dope of all time. Look for the occupation of Dixie to end any day now.
South lost the war in the near term but in the long term we have a vibrant South and a decaying North. People are voting with their feet.
The author should write a follow-on called "Why the North Lost the Civil War," as it was a war where all the states on both sides lost their states' rights.
Last year I stopped for gas at a little village in NW Pennsylvania, which was manned by an elderly man wearing a re-enactor's Union Infantry cap. Seeing my Texas plates, he said he had visited Texas once, and had helped a young couple with car trouble, who then told him he was a good guy, "even if he was a Yank." After paying him and going to the restroom, I came out as he was waiting on another customer at the register, told him, "The couple was right, you are a pretty good guy for a Yank!" He ignored his new customer and hollered back, "Hey, we won that war, you know!"
I replied, "No, we all lost that one," whereupon the customer jerked his thumb back over his shoulder at me and said, "He's right, Ron!"
During Washingtons Presidency he signed an treaty with England that many in the US viewed as simply giving back some of what we fought for during the Revolution, Washingtons view was that it was inevitable that a war between the US an a European power was inevitable, it was best that much like his fighting that the idea wasnt simply to go out and win battles, much like Lee thought, but it was to drag it out until either you have the manpower to win or the will of the enemy dictates that they wont.
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.