"Did the Union or Confederacy Produce Better All-Around " Topic

…Soldiers?

Interesting thread…

link

Amicalement
Armand

This theme keeps coming back again and again like a bad ending to Friday the 13th Part XXX! If one side had clearly better troops the war wouldn't have dragged on for years. Any advantage the South may have had in material was offset by the North's other advantages. For example let's compare Southern and Northern Sailors … who had the advantage there?

Food for thought.

I remember hearing once that some US Commander had remarked during, or soon after, the war that if he had CSA cavalry and infantry and union artillery, he could defeat any army Europe could field.

Good point!. (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

I like to tell people that the two best armies in the world met on the field at Gettysburg.

I remember hearing once that some US Commander had remarked during, or soon after, the war that if he had CSA cavalry and infantry and union artillery, he could defeat any army Europe could field.

That was a CSA general after the war. I can't remember whether it was AP Hill or Early, but one of the subordinate commanders who survived the war.

I see that one of the contributors on the link brings out the business of there being more military academies in the South. This comes up a lot. They seem to think that because the modern day South has two famous military schools (VMI & the Citadel) and the North only has West Point, that its a 2-1 win for the South. In the 19th Century, there were dozens (maybe hundreds) of military academies and more of them were in the North than the South.

There is also a much bandied about statistic which says the South sent more men to West Point than the North. Now this IS true, but only because the South's poor educational system meant that an awful lot of those Southern boys flunked out and were replaced with new Southern candidates. If you look at the men who actually GRADUATED, the North has a clear numerical advantage.

I would say the only real advantage the south had was in Cavalry. Simply put the southerners were more rural and more accustomed to being on horseback. This advantage evaporated by mid-war as the north became more experienced, were producing better weapons than the south, and the south started to run out of horses. I never bought the infantry argument. The southern Infantry did better early on in certain areas because of better luck in generalship and having the home field advantage. Once the generalship issue was resolved then again the norths strengths became overwhelming.

I think the south had the edge in cav and inf as well as leadership on the whole. Also the south had something they were fighting for and were much more committed to the cause than union soldiers.

@ Scott, graduating from west point didn't seem to help the northern generals much. Again numbers is what saved the North.

I believe the comment on Confederate Infantry and Union Artillery was made by D.H. Hill in Battles and Leaders. A.P. Hill did not survive the war. EJN's comments are spot on. A careful study of the actual fighting shows that the infantry were very equal when correctly led, Union artillery was superior for many technical reasons and Confederate cavalry in the east was better until roughly Brandy Station when the advantage begins to slowly shift.

Thanks!.

Amicalement
Armand

Grossman wrote: "Also the south had something they were fighting for and were much more committed to the cause than union soldiers."

I'm afraid I can't agree with that. The Union soldiers were fighting for the Union, something that had a mystical, almost holy hold on those men. Later they were fighting for the end of slavery. They held to their commitment through defeat after defeat and carried through to victory. The Southerners were fighting for a cause that they believed in too, no doubt. But in the end they gave up. Yes, they were outnumbered, but the fact remains that they gave up when they could have kept fighting. They laid down their arms, went home, and never tried to fight again. I think the North had the greater commitment.

I can't remember whether it was AP Hill or Early, but one of the subordinate commanders who survived the war.

A. P. Hill did not survive the war; killed not long before the end while trying to plug a hole in the line.

graduating from west point didn't seem to help the northern generals much

It didn't seem to hurt Grant, Sherman, Sheridan or Thomas much!