American Civil War questions

[unmerged(2392)]

Just finished browsing several websites about the American Civil War. I still don't know much about the period and I couldn't find my answers in those websites.

My questions are:

1. Why did Confederate soldiers consistently performed better than Union soldiers?
2. Why was the South defeated?

Anybody has any suggestion to any good civil war websites? I know there are a lot out there, that's why I don't know which ones are good.

Thanks.

 

[unmerged(4386)]

Answer to question #1 is that Confederate troops did not consistently perform better than Union troops.

Answer to question #2 is that the South was badly outnumbered in men and material, and the Union eventually managed to find a few generals competent enough to exploit the advantage.

 

[unmerged(5190)]

richtig

i agree with the above. also, sherman was probably the greatest gerneal usa has produced. w/o him taking atlanta in 1864, plus marching to sea:
1- lincoln would not have been relected
2- Lee would not have surrendered (he wasforced out of trenches because of fear of sherman
(whereas grant effectively destroyed the army of the potomac as a fighting force by attacking head on against prepared defenses(70,000 causualties between wildnerness and petersburg) sherman outmaneuvered the confederates and inflicted greater casualties on the army of tenessee.

 

[unmerged(2861)]

I'm sure to be corrected, but I think the Confederate commanders were better than their Yankee counterparts until late in the war. Also, wasn't the Rebel cavalry and scouting better?

 

[unmerged(4876)]

The South had a lot of good commanders in the beggining of the war (gave them an early advantage), but as time went on, the Union got some training, and began to produce some halfway decent generals.

 

[unmerged(5120)]

the difference in troop quality wasn't due to the leaders alone. Both sides used different policies with new recruits.

The Union didn(t feed reinforcements into already existing units. Instead, the recruits went to newly raised regiments, so they couldn't share the experience of veterans.

The Confederacy instead spread the new recruits as replacements into already existing units, so a confederate regiment included (in most cases, and until losses became irretrievable) a majority of veterans who could pass their experience to the newbies.

 

[Ebusitanus]

Re: richtig

Originally posted by senex
i agree with the above. also, sherman was probably the greatest gerneal usa has produced. w/o him taking atlanta in 1864, plus marching to sea:
1- lincoln would not have been relected
2- Lee would not have surrendered (he wasforced out of trenches because of fear of sherman
(whereas grant effectively destroyed the army of the potomac as a fighting force by attacking head on against prepared defenses(70,000 causualties between wildnerness and petersburg) sherman outmaneuvered the confederates and inflicted greater casualties on the army of tenessee.

Sherman was good but not to qualify as the "grearest". He didn't take Atlanta as a planed move to get Lincoln reelected. It happend that Genrl. Hood, who replaced Gen. Johnson was a bit "too agresive" and managed to bleed dry the Army of Tennessee in foolish frontal assaults and then decided to withdraw.
Again...Lee's surrender at Apomatox has little to do with Sherman's march to the sea. That is something Grant managed very well by himself with the slow but unstoppable investment of the St. Peterburg's works. Once he got pased those southern rail lines, therby cutting the last supply sources from the Carolinas he had to retreat towards Danville anyways...he got bagged in the procees, loosing about a whole division and seeing everything was lost surrendered. Sherman was still a good distance away burning Columbia and chasing off some last resistance from the reinstated Gen. Johnston. Keep in mind he even gave him a last headache in Bentonville. Sherman c an't just compare to Grant on the US side.

 

[unmerged(3586)]

What actually happened at the battle of Bentonville. I've read a fair bit about the ACW but have only come across references to this engagement (probably as it was fought after the war had effectively been decided).

For what it's worth - I do believe that (unsuprisingly) R.E Lee was the best army commander. He pretty much read Grants mind during the 1864 overland campaign and seemed to perpetually outwit him. But - unfortunately for Lee - both he and Grant knew, by this point, that the material and man power advantage the North possessed would ultimately prove decisive unless Lincoln was defeated at the polls. This, of course, made Shermans capture of Atlanta and therefore the subsequent re-election of Lincoln the final turning point of the war as after that there was no real chance that the confedracey would survive. Grant, in truth, had actually failed in his venture of 1864 while Sherman had succeeded.

 

[Ebusitanus]

Bentonville was the Army of Tenessee's last bid for slowing, since destroying was kind of a ludicrous ambition. On their way north, after having their nice barbacuee at Columbia, Sherman's army split, for the sake of marching easiness, in two columns. On their way both roads began to split more and more and the left column was slowed by bad road conditions. AoT tried to destroy Sherman picemal by engaging each column separtely. Initial progress was good and the Rebs chased the Yanks a good amount till the mighty northern artillery, well placed on the end of a wast open ground, repulsed the rebs right wing. Fighting continued along the right wing among some dense wooden terrain but the momentum was lost and shortly after, with the other Yank column rushing to the action, Johnston decided to call it quits. It was just days before he surrendered his whole command at Fayeteville.
Alan, Grant didn't give a damn about Lee reading his mind...After the Wilderness slaughter, when most of prior northern commanders would have disengaged and tried again in couple of months. Grant, as he so told Lincoln, decided to "fight it out"...He knew where Lee was weak, that is manpower. A war of attrition would always play into Grants hand. Everytime Lee set up a blocking position for the long aproach of the Army of the Potomac to Richmond, he basically saw it as another nice chance to cause non-reeplacebale casualities on the Rebs. Spotsilvania courthouse, the angle...huge losses for both sides but Lee reeling after each exchange. Lee bungled too by missing that good oportunity at the North Anna river when Grant had crossed that river without good recon. later he would loose good men trying to mend tha missed oportunity. Cold harbor...that was a big screw up by Grant and he felt it...nevertheless, as soon as that army sweept over the James river to link up with those guys waiting south and began investing Petersburg, as Lee said it himself "If this campaign turns into a siege we are lost" and so it happened. The destruction of the Shenandoah expeditionary force under Early after his, almost glorious, rush to Washington, just made things faster as the Rebs lost their granary there.
Sherman was good, damn good, but he was fighting against the weaker of the confederate hosts and just doing what Grant told him to do after leaving for the eastern front. He did his bungling too (Keenesaw mountain) and it was Hood who played into his hands..you know how happy he was when he heard of him getting the command. AoT was sadly to politicized from the begining on by too many "jeb Davis friends" (Polk, Bragg, etc..)...Too bad Sydney Johnston died by Shiloh, stuff could have been much more different.
Grant knew what he wanted and how to get it...time was passed by 1864 for colorful open field charges...Virginia was basically a trench warfare issue by then.

 

[Ebusitanus]

My favourite was...A.P. Hill, but the Corps command was a bit to big for him, just like Hood. Very good division commanders both.

 

[Gjakoll]

Originally posted by Ebusitanus
My favourite was...A.P. Hill, but the Corps command was a bit to big for him, just like Hood. Very good division commanders both.

Those two and on the Union side Fightin' Joe Hooker, were classic examples of the Peter Principle in action. You know, a man keeps getting promoted to the point where he isn't capable of doing his job.

 

[unmerged(5451)]

1. Why did Confederate soldiers consistently performed better than Union soldiers?

They had the home field advantage.

 

[TheDS]

I'd like to clear up a little misconception about Grant. He wasn't drunk all the time. He had migraines.

Now, onto the question...

In the beginning, most of the talented generals came from the South. Most of those chose to believe that their individual states were more important than the United States as a whole, and so joined the CSA. Sectionalism (North, South, West regions, rather than Nationalism; one country) was quite rampant by then. The Missouri Compromise and Kansas-Nebraska Act (and the evils the KNA gave birth to) were indicators that something wasn't right with the USA.

The North believed the South was going to be a pushover. They had half as many people, little industry, and a lost cause. What more could one want of an enemy? Lee took the initiative and kept a hold of it. By 1862, when Lee was in Pennsylvania, trying to feint his way into DC, it was looking highly likely that the South would win. The North couldn't win battles. McClellan was a political opponent of Abe Lincoln and wanted to be the next President. He was also pretty incompetent. He wouldn't attack; he usually believed he was far outnumbered, and Lincoln couldn't can him until he did something that even Congress could see was wrong. England and France were considering helping the CSA.

Then a Confederate courier lost Lee's orders. They were found by the Union and Lee was "handily" defeated; driven out of Pennsylvania. Lincoln was then able to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing slaves in the South. He had to wait a long time till the Union got a significant victory. By issuing the Proclamation, he guaranteed that European powers (who detested slavery by now) would not aid the South, sealing their downfall.

Now that Lee had lost the initiative, the Union was able to press their advantages that they had been so proud of. The Union had rail lines more thoroughly distributed, allowing men and material to quickly be taken where they were needed. The South was suffering invasions, having transportation and production eliminated, and it became an easy matter for the North to concentrate all their power on small chunks of the South, which couldn't be reinforced.

Out west, Grant was having successes. He captured Vicksburg. He made promises to Lincoln about what he would do, and he kept them. By the time he was made General of the Armies, the South was going to lose. He probably shortened the war by a year or two. The South would likely have tried to keep on fighting, had he not quickly ground Lee's forces into the dirt.

If you play conquer-the-world or conquer-the-universe games, you will likely see that he who has the greatest production generally wins the war. Of course, now we keep adding lots of new elements to the mix, like technology, national morale, and other stuff, but in this war, the North had most of the advantages, and eventually won. If you look at our other wars, you'll notice a pattern. Generally, we get caught by surprise. We lose. But then we kick our production into gear, and we kick butt. CW, WW1, WW2, KW (twice), and Cold War. That's right. We did a massive buildup and the Soviets couldn't match us, so they fell.

 

[Ebusitanus]

"For Virginia!...Home, boys, home, home is beyond that hill"

So much gallantry...<sigh>

 

[unmerged(3115)]

Id also have to say that the yankee navy played a huge role in destroying the rebs. The blockade cause massive inflation in the south and prevented the lucritive southern resources being converted into european arms, such as heavy artillery and shoes

 

[unmerged(5758)]

The Great Confederate Loser - Braxton Bragg

The Confederacy lost the American Civil War in the West. Yes Virginia looks flashy and important because Richmond is there, but when you consider population ane economic statistics, the West was far more important to the Confederacy.

First of all, the largest cities in the South were in the West. The five largest cities in the South at the time were Louisville (if you include Kentucky), New Orleans, Memphis, Montgomery, and Nashville. No city in Virginia really even came close.

The Confederay's economic heartland was in Mississippi, Georgia, and Alabama. When these three states were cut off from the rest of the Confederacy when Atlanta fell, the South's fate was thus ordained.

Thus, why didnt the Confederacy pay more attention to the West?

Some the blame can go to Robert E Lee and his constant refusal to send Longstreet's corps west to destroy Rosecrans. When he finally did, after Gettsyburg, it was far too late. The Confederacy did win a smashing victory at Chickamagua, but by that time, Grant was already done with Vicksburg, and on came a huge Yankee army to reinforce the Army of the Cumberland.

The most blame though for the failure of the Confedreacy in the West goes to Braxton Bragg, the worst general of the entire war. Bragg failed constantly in Tennseee, wasting his army away in idiotic attacks, such as at Mufreesboro, where one-third of the Army of Tennessee became casualties. He made bad generals like Rosecrans look good when he got flanked out of Chattanooga in 1863 without even a single fight. He finally won at Chickamagua thanks to Longstreet's arrival, but he failed to follow up the victory and complete the destruction of the Army of the Cumberland. Thus, Grant comes over, done with Vicksburg, and Bragg loses Chattanooga to Thomas's shattered Army of the Cumberland. In the most spectacular feat of the war, the Army of the Cumblerand, which was so near destuction, felt it had something to prove, and without orders, they swept up Missionary Ridge, and sent Bragg flying to Georgia.

Thus came Sherman's capture of Atlanta, the reelection of Lincoln, and the March to the Sea.