"Why the Confederacy Lost: " Topic

Joseph T. Glatthaar speaking at Vanderbilt University using material from his book that I posted about recently.

YouTube link

I've watched the first 15 minutes or so. I'll get back to the rest later. So far, everything he says rings true.

Unfortunately, I mistakenly committed the cardinal sin of actually reading some of the comments for a YouTube video.

The North had a population of 24 million people to draw from. The South had a population of 9.5 million people of which they were only willing to draw from 6 million. The other 3.5 million were slaves.

One comment suggests that arming the slaves "en masse" would have made all the difference in the world. Not with those numbers.

So lets say the South had armed the slaves. They would also have to decisively win on all fronts. They didn't even come close. In the North, they did well. Possibly good enough to win. In the West, the writing was on the wall after Shiloh.

I have not looked at the lecture yet. I am looking forward to it.

> One comment suggests that arming the slaves "en masse" would have made all the difference in the world.

It would, war would have been over right that second…

Gods…I don't even have to sit through someone at Vanderbilt to say the following:

1: Population
2: Moneytary/Economic Power
3: Industrial Power
4: International Trade
5: Political Recognition
6: Logistics

plus a nice steady stream of immigrants coming into the NE that can be easily "substituted" into the Northern Armies…

Never forget that a "confederacy" which allows its constituent parts to do as they please will always have a disadvantage to a unified adversary. This has been true throughout history, whatever the merits of either sides' position.

Well the Confederacy didn't lose our refight of Gettysburg. If interested, check out YouTube and tap in 'Gettysburg DBACW'

because of U. S. Grant!

It would, war would have been over right that second…

One way or another, I suppose so.

I just read the book "how to lose a civil war" which is very good.

My question is what would happened if the confederates would nott have fired the first shoot but just did nothing to to the isolated forts??

Would the union have attacked sooner or later and what would have happen than to Lincoln?

Greetings

Murphy,

Actually your #4 & #5 don't get a plug but there are other reasons enough besides those you mention, some of which are not that obvious.

Won't spoil it for those who want to watch but they are interesting to say the least.

Murphy listed these points:

1: Population
2: Moneytary/Economic Power
3: Industrial Power
4: International Trade
5: Political Recognition
6: Logistics

For me, an interesting question would be where have these factors been insufficient to guarantee victory? The closest analogy I could think of was the ongoing centuries of rivalry (with occasional open conflict/all-out war) between England and Scotland. Despite all its advantages, England did not achieve a successful military conquest of Scotland. The conflict was finally resolved when the English throne was offered to the Scottish king. The English readily conquered Wales and Ireland, but not Scotland. (and yes, it's a broad-brush approach, there are exceptions such as Edward I's direct rule of Scotland for a few years, and ignores the ECW period and the Jacobite rebellions, which were as much internal civil wars within Scotland as they were conflicts with England).

Another analogy may be the war between North and South Vietnam, where the North eventually triumphed, although that analogy would probably fall apart more quickly.

Many European nations have come, gone and returned, but the interactions there are more complicated as the conflicts frequently would have more than two parties.

Any there other conflicts where the 'weaker' party succeeded in maintaining or achieving its independence?

Unfortunately, I mistakenly committed the cardinal sin of actually reading some of the comments for a YouTube video

Luckily I trained under a Jedi Master never to read any comments on a You Tube Video after realizing that regardless of the subject the equipment used by those viewing and posting these comments is way smarter then they are!

Because slavery is f'ing WRONG. Forget all the other completely legit reasons. Even if we (I am a Southerner) had won, the Confederacy would have collapsed sooner than later. The South winning would have produced the most F'ed up Country ever. That's part of the reason I quit reenacting 15 years ago, after 20 years. I ran into more & more people who really wished the South had won, & somehow thought if they reenacted "hard enough" they would win! We deserved to have our ass kicked, and boy did we get it. Of course, nothing really changed till 100 years later, and still aint right. But at least we are on the right path.
PS- Terrement has some good points too.

Ceterman- Its good to hear a real patriot now and again.

You know, I hear a lot of criticism of Lee for the casualties the ANV suffered, but Glatthaar points out the massive damage the ANV inflicted: 45% of all Union killed and wounded in the entire war. In the last year of war alone, they inflicted 127,000 casualties on the Army of the Potomac – almost as many casualties the ANV suffered over the course of the war. And under significant hardships, as well.

Re: Ceterman – agreed on all points. I like to paint little Confederates, but this "The South will rise again!" business is nothing good.

Oh, and Wonderbilt is just down the road from my alma mater, Belmont University. I do miss Nashville in the fall.

End of the day the Confederacy lost the war on the battlefield. All of the demographic inequalities show why a U.S. victory would be the likely result, but history has a number of instances where a supposedly weaker nation defeated a stronger nation or coalition of nations in war. The problem for the Confederacy was they never won the kind of army crushing battles that would have been needed to win.

Actually, they lost because of President Lincoln, who refused to lose.

Dave

Pan Marek,
I get called lots of things. Patriot is usually not one of em. Thank you.
Peter

The Souths best chance was to have walked in 1850. They could have won that year, but every year after that the North industrialized and increased their population, plus they really came to hate the fugitive slave act over the next 10 years. There were areas of the North in passive to open rebellion over assisting Federal Marshals in handing over run away slaves. They really didnt like the fact the government was interfering with their lives and believes due to Southern demands on enforcements of a really unpopular law.

Union had more balloons?

Ceterman, you da man.

As a Brit and 1/2 American I am very glad the Confederacy went to hell in a hand cart!

1, What state would, what ever you would wish it to be called USA, be in, in the 20th Century if the Confederacy had won! Certainly not the "Arsenal of Democracy"

2,My Mum would never had met my Dad.

Personally I took several points from the talk not least of which how long Lee managed to hold the whole mess together.

Have to say I'm not his greatest fan and Lord Knows he made mistakes. Plus the level of losses the ANV took even at battles he won meant the Confederacy was doomed to lose in the field on pure trade off but given the shortage of everything and the decimation of the officer corps – a key element from Glatthaar's book – slave owners fighting harder and losing more – Lee really did work wonders in 64 & 65.

I think Glatthaar also painted a good picture of the pre war Southern society which found it unthinkable that an inferior (as they saw it) North could beat them and so ignored the possibility of being overwhelmed in every area of resources.

The conflict was finally resolved when the English throne was offered to the Scottish king.

And that was the biggest disaster in our history. Took a Dutch hero and his army save us and an Hanovarian to finally pay to the damned House of Stuart.

Ceterman well said old boy!

You know, I hear a lot of criticism of Lee for the casualties the ANV suffered, but Glatthaar points out the massive damage the ANV inflicted: 45% of all Union killed and wounded in the entire war.

Which as you Americans say 'doesn't amount to a hill of beans' because the war was won in the western theater.

The real eason of why the Confederacy lost was brought home in crushing clarity to me at an almost throw-away exhibit, a lighted map, at the Easton PA Canal Boat Museum.

This map which was put into the place where a window would be in the upper part of a door to a utility room was a simple lighted map showing the growth of canals in the United States. It sarts off slowly with canal development roughtly equal in North and South, but the North getting a little better along because the rivers were conducive to canals interlacing them.

Then the Erie Canal is completed linking the Hudson with Lake Erie and the Headwaters of the Monongahela, the Ohio, and the rivers of the great lakes. Suddenly canals race across the North West. There it was, the whole reason the South Lost the Civil War. Those Canals opened the Rivers of the West down which the most bulky and cumbersome cargoes could be floated up to the Great lakes and down the Hudson and the Connecticut and others to the entepots and manufacturing centers of the North. Further, as water transport is the most efficient and cheapest of means to transport heavy and bulky cargo (like railroad rails) it ensured that the railroads would be built alongside, and sometimes on the old canal beds, taking the easiest grades to the vast plains of the West. These would not go to Virginia or Atlanta, or Savannah, the rivers ran the wrong way. Only New Orleans could benefit in this way. These canals and these railroads guaranteed that the people who settled the West and the Northwest were from the North, from populations who did not use or like slaves and disliked the institution of slavery. It meant that the vast population that supported the Union War effort would come from the non-slave-holding areas and from Europe where American slavery was too much like European serfdom from which they soon escaped.

The other impetus for the settlement of the west can be found in John Mack Farraghers "Sugar Creek:Life on the Indian Frontiers" Here Farragher notes that many who settled here were poor white subsistance farmers, first driven out of the tidewaters and cotton and tobacco planting areas by inability to compete with the cheapness of slave labor. They were driven into the sparse Georgia, Tennessee and Kentucky uplands into hardscrapple farms, and eventually over the Mountains into Indiana. They might have hated slavery, but that did not mean they loved the slave.
But the key was those canals and those railroads. It flooded the (then) Northwest with people for whom slavery was no part of their life, and usually repllent to their souls.

So, if you want to say "When did the South Lose the Civil War" you can say with complete Authority, "October 26, 1825.

You can see evidence of this even in New Jersey where I live. Near paterson New Jersey which is surrounded on almost three sides by the Passaic, and which had the first planned industrial district in America, powered by the falling water of the Pasaic Falls and the "raceways" for the mills. Linking this river to the canal systems of the west was the old Morris and Erie Canal,winding around the base of Garrett Mountain. The canal was then filled in and became the roadbed for the Erie Railroad. When that went bust the tracks were taken up and the roadbed became the present Route 80.

And if they would have won?

YouTube link

The entire movie is on You Tube.

Kim

In the last year of war alone, they inflicted 127,000 casualties on the Army of the Potomac – almost as many casualties the ANV suffered over the course of the war.

Yes but the Union could absorb it easily and replenish and even increase the size it's armies. The Confederacy couldn't.

A couple of points.

I heard a statistic that in 1865 there were more African-Americans in the Union army than all soldiers in the entire Confederacy.

Arming and/or freeing the slaves would give the Confederate Government no reason to exist. The Confederate Vice President said as much in his "Corner Stone" speech.

link

Murphy,

Actually your #4 & #5 don't get a plug but there are other reasons enough besides those you mention, some of which are not that obvious.

Heck, points 1, 2, 3 and 6 are plenty enough to secure defeat I think. 4 and 5 are just icing on the cake

Thanks for the support guys! I also got a stifle out of this conversation.(I figure I'll get a few more) Probably from one of those reenactors I spoke of earlier…
Sad but true…
Peter

Ceterman, nothing you've said deserves a stifling. You are 100% correct. My only guess is it could be construed as too political. But hey, can't argue with you. I'm from the South, and I consider myself a Union man.

Ceterman, I'm not exactly sure what you've restored my faith in, but you've restored my faith in something! Well done!

Ceterman: So why do you say "we" in reference to the Confederacy, since you don't support its objectives? It's the same mistake that your ancestors made -- identifying with your geographic region instead of your political sympathies. Fortunately a few bold souls, such as Winfield Scott, John Gibbon, and George Thomas, could see that point even then.

My kudos to Ceterman, too. Good man!

Yes but the Union could absorb it easily and replenish and even increase the size it's armies. The Confederacy couldn't.

One can read the census and know that. :)

Regarding arming the slaves, I can tell you from my readings that Southerners feared an armed slave uprising FAR more than they did war with the North. Arming the slaves was simply never a realistic option.

Speak to any elderly rural Southerner today, especially the women, and you'll still hear that same fear come through loud and clear. My in-laws are exhibit A.

Having now had an opportunity to listen to the lecture Glatthaar really likes Bobby Lee – a view not shared by General Fuller. Given the choice between them I'll take Boney's view thankee very much.

On the issue of arming the slaves, one Southern politician said: "If slaves will make good soldiers our whole theory of slavery is wrong."

Well, he sure got that one right!

Saw this lecture a couple of weeks ago on C-Span. Love American History Television on C-Span

c-span.org/History

"One can read the census and know that."

Yes but one must point it out, otherwise you would infer that the South should have won considering the amount of casualties they caused.

Every Southern state but South Carolina provided at least one white regiment to the Federal Army. The south was never a unified "nation" of any sort. Jefferson Davis said the Confederacy "died from a theory" – states rights to the nth degree.

donlowry,
I said "we" meaning the Commonwealth of Virginia. A southern state, perhaps "The" Southern state. I'm proud to be a Virginian, and if I was 17 in 1863, dirt poor & had an army of men marching thru & burning my buildings & crops, I would probably take up arms against them as some of my more Southern relatives did. We (well, my Brother has it now) have a painting of my Great-Great-Great Grandfather that was saved by way of being pitched out of a second story window of a burning southern home. My dad told me many times of his Great Grandmother bitching about "Yankee this & Yankee that". He didn't blame her. Nor would I. She lived it. Or maybe I may have joined the Union army as some of my other Tennessee relatives did. Either way none of my family was wealthy enough to own human beings as far as I know of. So I know I wouldn't have gone to war trying to "keep my slaves". But ultimately, that is what the war was about. Some call it "States Rights". BS. It was "States Rights to keep Slaves" say what ya want but that was & is 99.9% of it. Even though the North started the slave trade, supported it, got rich from it & then called pretty much everyone South of the Mason-Dixon line a Godless heathen. That's not quite the right thing to do either. It should have been "put right" in the Constitution. It still kills me when some people look at our Founding Fathers as flawless Saint's who could do NO wrong. Not dealing with our country's ultimate "Wrong" at that time basically caused the ACW & sooooo many problems that we still are dealing with today. None the less, this is a Great Country that SHOULD get greater.
PS- I would like to think that maybe, just maybe, I would, just as Winfield Scott, John Gibbon, George Thomas & thousands of others would have seen the point even then.
Peter

Ceterman: I was born in Kentucky, a fact that I'm neither proud nor ashamed of, as it was not my doing. Nor did I get a choice when we moved to Indiana or later to Michigan. But my Kentucky ancestors were Unionists, though probably not abolitionists, and of that I'm reasonably proud -- that is, I'm proud of them for supporting the "right." (My grandmother hated Democrats about the way your great-great hated Yankees.)

Yes, Union soldiers committed depredations in Virginia -- usually against orders, but real nevertheless. But if the leaders of Virginia had not committed treason there would have been no need for a Union army to be there.

The thing is, so many people today identify with their state or region, just as they did then, instead of the whole country, or, better yet, the whole world. There are statues of Confederate soldiers surrounding the court house in the county where I was born, even though Kentucky was never part of the Confederacy. I remember reading one fellow from East Tennessee telling how as a boy he and his friends ran around playing that they were Confederate soldiers -- what little they knew of the War was that Tennessee was on the Confederate side -- until his grandfather took him aside and explained that his ancestors had been on the Union side.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

There's just no escaping it is there? One of most uplifting and at the same time hypocritical sentences ever written in the English language.

My assumption has always been that the desperate need for a compromise – for compromise it was – to avoid a Civil War before winning the one for Independence, drove enough people to expediency who wouldn't have other wise countenanced such an act.

As you say ultimately it did few favors and just put off the inevitable.

The problem, of course, was the definition of "men". The slaves were considered to be something less than human by those who owned them, and by many others as well. And, of course, women weren't even mentioned.

With both sides social morals it would be impolite to mention women folk!