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.
Lee was also suffering from the loss of Stonewall Jackson. His order to take Cemetery Hill "if practicable" would have been interpreted a helluva lot differently by Jackson than it was by Dick Ewell.
I stand corrected. Draft did not start till 1863. Overall the Union leadership in the East was not stellar. It took 2 years to shake out ths system. The fighting from Gettysburg onward, many Union divisional, brigade, regimental commanders were promoted from the ranks up, veterans and proven men, versus the earlier selections tainted by politics or inherited deadwood. The South lost the war in the West and at sea. These battles helped the Union accomplish the Anaconda Strategy which ultimately cut up and strangled the South of resources and ability to replace material and manpower losses.
Our bankruptcy laws are modeled on the Biblical concept of slavery, which was a limited period of reduced responsibility, not to exceed seven years. (although the option was open for those who desired it to REQUEST a permanent condition of slavery.) The Africans who came to this country were already slaves who would otherwise have been killed, or castrated and sent off to the world of islam to guard and fill harems. (as they still are.) Slavery itself, per se, is not considered evil in the Bible. It is, however, a lower position in life, and the believer should use lawful available means to get out of it.
The first black "indentured servants" came to Virginia in 1619, served their terms, and began independent lives. The problem in the American south began when the Biblical pattern was broken, and the slaves were not capitalized and released after seven years.
The south lost because they did not have the industrial base to support the war effort. It is a simple fact. He who can make the most bullets wins!
Probably. Lee was a very hands off commander, preferring to make his desires known in broad terms and allowing the commander on the field to execute a plan to accomplish it. As you pointed out that was no problem for Jackson but it was for Ewell. But Lee should have known that.
And yet those English aristocrats refused to recognize confederate sovereignty. And before you make such blanket claims, one of William Gladstone's closest friends was Charles Sumner.
Like what?
This profited merchants and manufacturers in the north at the expense of largely poor farmers in the south (most of whom owned no slaves).
These poor southern farmers were big consumers of imports were they?
Overall, neither was the confederate leadership. Take away Jackson and the southern corps commanders in the Army of Northern Virginia were a mediocre lot. The south had, for all practical purposes, a single competent army commander. Division and brigade commanders were about even.
We recall Gladstone's famous comment that Jefferson Davis had made a nation. Whenever the British were on the point of recognizing the Confederacy, the Union would win a victory. Acton was perhaps more representative of English aristocracy. The middle-class liberals tended to be on the side of the Union.
I read that Lee waited for a while in Gettysburg in a defensive position, thinking Meade might come after him. Also, Pickett was devastated and never forgave Lee for what happened to his men. Longstreet also wanted to get away from Lee at that point.
"Overall Union leadership was not stellar." I meant in the East and the first 2.5 years of the war only. The best Union commanders were in the West while the best Confederate commanders were in the East at the beginning of the war. Unfortunately too many promising brigade commanders were killed at the beginning of the war, and who knows how well they would have been if they lived. Even if the Northern commanders were average, the sheer industrial might, efficient rail system and manpower of the North was crushing the South. The ACW was fought at the dawn of the industrial revolution and the people who ran the North were not stupid to take advantage of this economic advantage.
I used to think Lincoln was a great President ( I think he was a good man) until I started really getting into the War of Northern Aggression and found him to be like FDR.....wrong man at the right time. I put Lincoln up in the top ten of bad Presidents. Thanks for the heads-up on Lincoln and Marx......I had no idea.
Exactly trek. To call it a Civil War is to miss it's meaning altogether. If Virginia fought Virginia, etc., that would be a Civil War. A War of Northern Aggression is what I call it and always will. *~*
How sad was it that these West Point generals who were classmates and soldiers together ended up trying to defeat each other. It would be like Gen. Myers & Gen. Abizaid trying to kill each other.
Thanks Sassy.
State loyalties ran deep in those days.
Other way around. Lee began his return to Virginia the next day, with the first of his wagons beginning the journey south on the afternoon of July 4. You're correct in that Pickett never forgave Lee.
Point of trivia. Pickett received his appointment to West Point from an Illinois congressman. Pickett's uncle and this congressman were political enemies and the uncle enlisted the help of a third party to act as go between and assist in obtaining the appointment. That go-between was Abraham Lincoln. Nice story, even if it may not be entirely accurate.
Gladstone later denied that he meant that speech as recognition of the confederacy. Palmerston was not amused.
But it helped Lee, who knew most of his opponents very well. The one Union general he had little memory of was Grant, who turned out to be the only one Lee couldn't figure out.
..."The War of Southern Rebellion"
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.