Why the Confederacy Lost

Gamers can also use this forum to chat about any game related subject, news, rumours etc.

Moderator: maddog986

User avatar
parusski
Posts: 4789
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Jackson Tn
Contact:

Why the Confederacy Lost

Post by 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
"I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast."- W.T. Sherman
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Why the Confederacy Lost

Post by 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.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
parusski
Posts: 4789
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Jackson Tn
Contact:

RE: Why the Confederacy Lost

Post by parusski »

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.
"I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast."- W.T. Sherman
User avatar
AbwehrX
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 8:37 pm

RE: Why the Confederacy Lost

Post by AbwehrX »

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.

User avatar
Twotribes
Posts: 6466
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Jacksonville NC
Contact:

RE: Why the Confederacy Lost

Post by Twotribes »

ORIGINAL: AbwehrX
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.
Favoritism is alive and well here.
User avatar
AbwehrX
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 8:37 pm

RE: Why the Confederacy Lost

Post by AbwehrX »

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.
User avatar
DanSez
Posts: 1023
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 10:02 pm

RE: Why the Confederacy Lost

Post by 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/could not embrace the very thing they were afraid of and vowed to fight against.

Ironic, isn't it...

(spelling edit)
The Commander's job is to orchestrate and direct the three major dimensions of combat - space, time and force. Shattered Sword, the Untold Story of the Battle of Midway
User avatar
parusski
Posts: 4789
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Jackson Tn
Contact:

RE: Why the Confederacy Lost

Post by parusski »

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."
"I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast."- W.T. Sherman
User avatar
AbwehrX
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 8:37 pm

RE: Why the Confederacy Lost

Post by AbwehrX »

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.
User avatar
wings7
Posts: 4586
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 4:59 am
Location: Phoenix, Arizona

RE: Why the Confederacy Lost

Post by wings7 »

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!
Please come and join and befriend me at the great Steam portal! There are quite a few Matrix/Slitherine players on Steam! My member page: http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197988402427
User avatar
freeboy
Posts: 8969
Joined: Sun May 16, 2004 9:33 am
Location: Colorado

RE: Why the Confederacy Lost

Post by freeboy »

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.
"Tanks forward"
User avatar
DanSez
Posts: 1023
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 10:02 pm

RE: Why the Confederacy Lost

Post by DanSez »

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.

The Commander's job is to orchestrate and direct the three major dimensions of combat - space, time and force. Shattered Sword, the Untold Story of the Battle of Midway
aaatoysandmore
Posts: 2846
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 1:35 pm

RE: Why the Confederacy Lost

Post by aaatoysandmore »

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)
User avatar
parusski
Posts: 4789
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Jackson Tn
Contact:

RE: Why the Confederacy Lost

Post by parusski »

ORIGINAL: DanSez

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.
"I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast."- W.T. Sherman
User avatar
decaro
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:05 pm
Location: Stratford, Connecticut
Contact:

RE: Why the Confederacy Lost

Post by decaro »

"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.
Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.[center]Image[/center]
[center]"The Angel of Okinawa"[/center]
Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II
User avatar
AbwehrX
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 8:37 pm

RE: Why the Confederacy Lost

Post by AbwehrX »

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
Posts: 584
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:36 pm
Location: Over the hills and far away

RE: Why the Confederacy Lost

Post by danlongman »

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.
"Patriotism: Your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." - George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Capt. Harlock
Posts: 5379
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

RE: Why the Confederacy Lost

Post by Capt. Harlock »

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 ... ert+cowley
Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo
gradenko2k
Posts: 930
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 6:08 am

RE: Why the Confederacy Lost

Post by gradenko2k »

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.
User avatar
fvianello
Posts: 532
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2002 12:23 pm
Location: Italy

RE: Why the Confederacy Lost

Post by fvianello »

ORIGINAL: parusski

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
H. Barca,
Surplus Consuls Dispatcher
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”