Matrix Games

quote:

ORIGINAL: Natali

Maybe the North finally won because half of the Southern West Pointers stayed with the North. Let’s see, 16 Northerners went South and 162 Southerners stayed North. Hmmm. The North gets George H. Thomas, and the South gets John C. Pemberton.

quote:

ORIGINAL: danlongman

I think it is pretty much impossible for us in the current era to understand politics
and loyalty as seen through 19th century hearts and minds. We can think about it
but unless we are thoroughly racist as most were then I hope understanding will be
difficult. The contentious political issues of the day, including slavery, were so potent
that people who considered themselves patriotic were willing to abandon their country
and their oaths and their duty for regional sympathies. I will endeavour to pick up the

quote:


turd by the clean end and say it was loyalty to home rather than anything else. Others
were willing to bring fire and sword on their countrymen to preserve a Union many did
not want. The bunch of them plunged the nation into the hell of civil war to prove a
political point. The way some people talk politics these days, on some fora, really concerns
me. When issues become blindly emotional, reason and compromise are out the window.

quote:


My understanding of the era was that a solid minority on both sides wished the zealots
would shut up and find something better to do with their time than bring the country down
around their ears. When a mob protest against the draft became a riot in New York City
the largely immigrant rioters attacked the local black population. How does that make sense? Well it did.
Just a thought or two. My ancestors mostly decamped for Canada until things settled down.
Many with their enlistment bounties in their wallets......(a few went back a few times for the extra
cash).
cheers

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

In a war of attrition, the outcome favors the side with the larger economy and population. The North had more industry and a larger population.

The South had some prominent generals who stood out for their leadership. The plantation system may have helped groom these men for leadership of large formations. The rest of Southern society was not right for prepping middle rank officers and there were not enough plantations to groom more than a handful of men capable of generalship. Most Southerners who were the sons of plantation owners had no aptitude or interest in being in the military. The few with the aptitude and the opportunity ended up standing out when the war came.

(Not defending the plantation system. Slavery is abhorrent.)

Bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson
In a war of attrition, the outcome favors the side with the larger economy and population. The North had more industry and a larger population.

The South had some prominent generals who stood out for their leadership. The plantation system may have helped groom these men for leadership of large formations. The rest of Southern society was not right for prepping middle rank officers and there were not enough plantations to groom more than a handful of men capable of generalship. Most Southerners who were the sons of plantation owners had no aptitude or interest in being in the military. The few with the aptitude and the opportunity ended up standing out when the war came.

(Not defending the plantation system. Slavery is abhorrent.)
Bill

Good point Bill. But I doubt the plantation system produced few good officers. It was not the kind system to provide leadership that a modern war demanded. In fact I doubt the plantation system provided one whit of benefit to the South. I am a Southern boy and love my Confederate heroes but when Sherman marched trough my native state of Georgia, wrecking and burning everything is sight-he was doing the place a favor. The system had to be dismantled.

quote:

ORIGINAL: US87891

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson
In a war of attrition, the outcome favors the side with the larger economy and population. The North had more industry and a larger population.

The South had some prominent generals who stood out for their leadership. The plantation system may have helped groom these men for leadership of large formations. The rest of Southern society was not right for prepping middle rank officers and there were not enough plantations to groom more than a handful of men capable of generalship. Most Southerners who were the sons of plantation owners had no aptitude or interest in being in the military. The few with the aptitude and the opportunity ended up standing out when the war came.

(Not defending the plantation system. Slavery is abhorrent.)
Bill

Good point Bill. But I doubt the plantation system produced few good officers. It was not the kind system to provide leadership that a modern war demanded. In fact I doubt the plantation system provided one whit of benefit to the South. I am a Southern boy and love my Confederate heroes but when Sherman marched trough my native state of Georgia, wrecking and burning everything is sight-he was doing the place a favor. The system had to be dismantled.

This was the early middle of the 19th century and not too far away from the Revolution or the Napoleonic wars. Back then in the 18th century, it was cultural that the comfortable classes contribute leaders; their children were raised up in this environment of privilege. These were people who had no other productive function in society, and it was accepted that they would become either Clerics or Officers. IMHO the South was much of the same mind and cultural background; they had more children of privilege to fill out the early leadership slots. They did fine till the Northern lawyers and politicians got their equivalent of Mexican war experience.