- This topic has 5 voices and 9 replies.
-
Posts
-
I'm wondering what advantages the South had over the North – not just militarily, but in terms of its economy/industries, terrain, political structure, etc. It just seems like the North had so many things in its favor from the beginning and then well into the War.
The South's advantages were 1. strategic depth filled with rugged terrain and a complex network of waterways (which later were used against them)2. fighting a defensive war — the South didn't have to win, they just had to hang on long enough to win politically3. knowledge of the battlefield — Northerners had to update their maps while Southerners already knew their country well4. superior officer corps early in the war (later the Union fielded a more professional grade army as attrition hurt the South more)5. superior cavalry (throughout the war until very late with the rise of Sheridan)6. superior spy network (see Mary Chesnut's Diary)There are more and I'll let others list them.
If the attacker has the troops to waste, the defender always loses. See World War I or the Crusades if you think I am wrong. Defense is a strategy of the weak. Despite the fact that the defense is always stronger, interminable defense has morale effects that no amount of superior tactics can overcome. Napoleon was right in that “in war the moral is to the material as 3 is to 1”.BTW, wastage is the correct military term for the troops killed or incapacitated in normal military operations.
If the attacker has the troops to waste, the defender always loses. See World War I or the Crusades if you think I am wrong. Defense is a strategy of the weak. Despite the fact that the defense is always stronger, interminable defense has morale effects that no amount of superior tactics can overcome. Napoleon was right in that “in war the moral is to the material as 3 is to 1”.BTW, wastage is the correct military term for the troops killed or incapacitated in normal military operations.
Grant was the first Union general to fully understand this. MacCllelan built the Army of the Potomac, but he didn't have the heart or stomach to use it. Grant didn't have such reservations.
I think, as already stated, that the South had no chance from the get go by it's defensive stance. I also believe that their view that war should be fought in a “gentlemanly” way was, at this point in history, outdated. You had the likes of Sherman, Grant and Sheridan rising in influence and their view of “total war” put the South at a huge disadvantage.I think also, one has to look at the South's end state… they were not, as many wish to believe, out to conquer the North, this led to their defensive stance, and demise. Had they taken the agressive, as Jackson did early on one would think the outcome may have been different with the caliber of generals the South had, but again, as already stated, the sheer number of manpower the North had over the South would have made takent he agressive futile.I wonder if Lee actually had that in the back of his head when he made his move into Pennsylvania?
Do you mean his move prior to Gettysburg? If I remember right he did it to draw the Army of the Potomac away from DC. He hoped to be able to do an end run around them and threaten Washington, forcing Lincoln to the Peace table.
Do you mean his move prior to Gettysburg? If I remember right he did it to draw the Army of the Potomac away from DC. He hoped to be able to do an end run around them and threaten Washington, forcing Lincoln to the Peace table.
Right… I guess I was wondering if he actually thought about the fact he was on the agressive and if this move didn't work, or if Lincoln refused to offer terms (which I am sure at this point in the conflict Lee had to realize Lincoln's resolve to preserve the Union was unshakeable) would this be the best course of action. This agressive move split up a lot of the Souths army… and I wonder if, again, at this point in the conflict, he truly understood the limitlessness of the military resources the North had? His forces were being split and fighting on multiple “fronts” and the Union forces still had reserves to spare… Lee HAD to have known this… So was PA a futile move, even if the outcome had been different?Even if Lee had achieved victory, threaten Washington, one wonders if he really undertood the amount of forces that the Union had and that it would be a very short time before reinforcements made their way to Washington and once again force Lee's army into retreat again.
It was actually a fairly smart move on Lee's part. Of course there was the part about having to win at Gettysburg but because of several might have beens, he did not. The trademark of Lee's tactical and strategic style was the indirect approach. He never wanted to hit the enemy where they were prepared for him or where they expected. He was a master at indirection, several times he did not fail but rather his subordinates failed him.If he had won at Gettysburg there was literally nothing stopping him from taking DC except for shopkeepers with shotguns. At that point, Lincoln may not have had a choice but to sue for peace depending on Public Opinion. I agree with you that Lincoln was determined to re-unite the Union. Everybody else in the North was not so sure. Don't forget that the Copperheads looked likely to win the presidency in 1864 until events on the battlefield changed peoples perception of who would win the war.
I believe Robert E Lee was one of the greatest generals in history because he had the 'uncanny ability to read the mind of his opponent' (quoted from Ken Burns' The Civil War documentary) and was able to fight with an often vastly outnumbered army against the Union and was a great asset to the south.Also the south had tried very hard to pull in help from European nations and it's alleged that they were funded in great part by the Bank of England. They tried hard to pressure for outside help by burning bales of cotton (since they couldn't get it out of Louisiana due to Union blockade).
Benjamin Butler and Kirby Smith had an economic relationship that often isn't mentioned in the history books.
