3 Reasons The Confederate Lost | The American Civil War
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 04. 2024
- The Confederacy lost the Civil War primarily due to three major factors: limited resources, international isolation, and strategic missteps. The Union had superior manpower and industrial capabilities, with more people and factories, allowing them to outproduce the South in essential war supplies. The Confederacy also failed to gain foreign support, with key nations like Britain and France remaining neutral, unwilling to back a slave-based economy. Strategic blunders by Confederate leaders, such as Jefferson Davis, particularly in battles like Gettysburg, stretched their resources thin and led to irreparable losses, ultimately crippling their ability to sustain the war effort.
Explore the American Civil War, a pivotal conflict from 1861-1865 that divided the nation into the Union (North) and Confederacy (South). Discover key battles like Gettysburg and Antietam, influential figures such as Abraham Lincoln and Robert E. Lee, and crucial issues like slavery and states' rights. Learn about the Emancipation Proclamation, Reconstruction, and the lasting impacts on U.S. history. This overview offers insights into military strategies, economic factors, and the societal changes that shaped modern America. Perfect for students, history enthusiasts, and anyone interested in the Civil War's profound legacy.
#history #wildwest #civilwar
A lifelong student of history, I've spent a great deal of time studying this conflict, and your presentation is one of the most concise yet accurate accounts I've yet seen. Well done!
My wife and I visited New England last year, including the Springfield Armory historic site. It provided a lot of insight into the northern industrial capacity. That whole region was cranking out arms, ammunition, textiles, food, raw materials, etc. during the war.
As author Shelby Foote said, "The Union basically fought with one hand tied behind it's back" (paraphrased)
@@joeylawn36111 makes sense. When you look at it objectively, the south never had enough of *anything* to successfully go to war. Much less win a war...
@@Chris_the_Dingo thanks
It was also arrogance and ignorance. The South won battles early on and started a propaganda campaign in which Northern Armies were merely "feeble city folk" So, it was a case of "buying one's own bullshit" The newspapers at the time constantly talked about how "one southerner could best 10 Northerners" So they'd put themselves in perilous positions. Southern soldiers wrote that they were surpised by actual combat and were lied to. Northern armies wrote how foolishly brave Southerners were.
I think Longstreet realized this before Lee ... and this was part of the reason he was so hesitant at Gettysburg
To be fair it was true (well, maybe not 10 to 1 but true enough) early in the war. It took from 1861 to mid 1863 before the Union army had both the leadership and veteran soldiers able to withstand the 1860s battlefield, something nobody world-wide was prepared for (thanks to mass produced arms and munitions).
So, the 10 to 1 was only an exaggeration of the truth. Unfortunately, the North's will to fight was not broken. By 1863, the southern soldier was no better and possibly worse than the union soldier (certainly the latter was better supplied).
It wasn't just the loss of figures like the oft cited Stonewall Jackson -- it was the hundreds and thousands of officers and men just like him that were also dead and not replaced by 1863.
Meanwhile you hear about individuals like Reynolds at Gettysburg that didn't really figure in the accounts before mid 1863. Afterwards, if you look carefully at the accounts, it is they and not southern daring do that dominated the accounts.
There was a lot of the slow grind southern apologists talk about, to be sure, but there were also all these accounts of the union doing what the south used to do -- holding positions against (locally) superior odds, Grant or Sherman dividing their armies and living off the land and all the rest of it. The north became the aggressor and, what's worse, they did it in a way designed to disrupt the southern economy. Meanwhile, New England and Iowa cranked out food and munitions unmolested by a single Minnie ball.
@@curious968 you wrote: The north became the aggressor... Yes, they fought to keep the Union intact and that REQUIRED going into the South. What other way could have been possible? Yes, they disrupted the Southern economy.... Which by the way, was over reliant on slavery. If the Southern people had been accustomed to wringing their bread by the sweat of their own brows then the failed Southern invasion of the North by Lee never would have happened.
@@persimmontea6383 Absolutely right. By all standards of war, then and now, the south started the war.
Once you start one, the other side is not obliged to play endless defense. They are allowed to attack. The best southern statesmen knew this, actually said so, then voted for secession and war anyway.
As Sherman said: "War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want."
Nasty, pithy and, sorry to say, all too realistic.
Loved both of your comments. Very insightful.
You can basically say those 3 things about every lost war
North had more men and more industry - plus the Southern armies had tremendous problem of troops straggling. At Antietam almost half the army wasn’t even there
The American Civil War was the first fully modern industrial war. Modern War is more about production and logistics than fighting on the battlefield. Modern Wars are wars of attrition. The Confederacy spent the war through Gettysburg Campaign searching for that one decisive Napoleonic style victory that was a chimera. No single victory could win the war. There were Confederate Generals who understood this but neither Robert E. Lee nor President Jefferson Davis did. The one General who understood the nature of the war from the beginning was Winfield Scott. Although his "Anaconda" Strategy was initial rejected and ridiculed it was the strategy that Union eventually adopted. Scott was 50 years ahead of his time and arguably the greatest American general.
It was an uphill battle once the North decided it wasn't going to let the issue go. Lower population, weak industry, no navy, terrible geography. Objectively the south never stood a chance.
controlling the Mississippi pretty much ended the war
I don’t disagree bc it supports my theory of the CSA losing to the USA. I think losing Tennessee with the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers, railroads that connected Memphis to Charleston and New Orleans to Ohio, plus Nashville, Shiloh, Corinth (Mississippi), and Chattanooga sealed their faith. Tennessee literally opens up the entire backyard of the southeast of the US. Jefferson Davis should have picked fewer areas to defend and concentrate on victories in those areas instead of trying to defend the entire confederacy. Just my thoughts
The first week of July 1863 was the death knell of the Confederacy. Yankee General Ulysses S. Grant occupied Vicksburg and captured 30,000+ Confederate soldiers. The Mississippi River was now a Union Highway. At Gettysburg Yankee General George Gordon Meade repulsed Confederate General Robert E. Lee’s raid into Pennsylvania inflicting casualties the South just could not afford. Lee would now be fighting on the Strategical Defense till he surrendered. In Middle Tennessee Yankee General William Stark Rosecrans would, in a brilliant and almost bloodless campaign, force Confederate General Braxton Bragg out of Tennessee and capture Chattanooga thus unlocking and opening the door to Atlanta. In the same week the Union Navy would seize Port Hudson. By the second week of July 1863 the writing was on the wall…
Not really. By the summer of 1864 Lincoln was pretty sure he was going to lose reelection, and the Democrats were ready to let the rebels go their own way.
Not saying Vicksburg wasn't extremely important...it was. But it was a stepping stone to victory, not the final blow.
@@aaronfleming9426 Yes, I agree. It wasn't the final blow, I just think once that happened, the South could not win.
@@paulvalentine4157 As late as August of 1864, Lincoln was pretty sure he was going to lose the election to a peace-platform Democrat candidate, and only the capture of Atlanta swung the election back his way.
Now, if Vicksburg had never been captured, then of course Lincoln would have lost. But the fall of Vicksburg was proceeded by the debacle at Chickamauga, the sputtering Mine Run campaign, the bloodletting of the Overland campaign, and Sherman's bumbling, snail-paced Atlanta campaign. There were lots and lots of reasons for the Northern public to be sick of war.
Another reason IMO: The confederacy lost the war partly due to their policy of simply trying to get the Union to the negotiating table instead of total victory (they couldn’t do so anyway as pointed out in this video). One cannot win a war by simply hoping that one’s enemy will ‘sue for peace’. The Japanese lost WWII for this reason (and for almost exactly the same reasons listed in this video).
No it was their policy of "king Cotton" that did them in"“Without firing a gun, without drawing a sword, should they make war on us we could bring the whole world to our feet […] No power on earth dares to make war upon it. Cotton is king.”
No, I disagree. The Confederacy knew full well that that was the only way they could win. Win by not losing. Hint: It almost worked! The invasion of Pennsylvania leading to the battle of Gettysburg, was not a real effort to conquer the North. It was a desperation gamble to bring the war up north and convince the North to stop the war. It was the Battle of the Bulge of the American Civil War.
@@JohnSmith-ct5jd But you cannot expect in ANY War for the enemy to do what you want. IMO we (the US) took a big risk with the atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki - there was always the possibility that Japan would have _not_ surrendered. Also, Osama Bin Dover (sic) grossly underestimated what our response to 9/11 would be.
@@JohnSmith-ct5jd It was a desperation gamble to bring international recognition to the confederacy
@@joeylawn36111 Well, I am not going to second guess our leaders at the end of World War Two. Remember, Japan forced that one on us. I agree that lots of things could have gone different despite the bomb. But I think President Truman and others decided it was the least worst decision they could make. Sometimes that is all you have. You are right about war being unpredictable. Look at the trouble Russia is having in Ukraine. Before that war it looked like on paper, Russia would easily crush Ukraine and the worst she would have to fear would be a possible insurgency afterword. Now it is the biggest European war since World War Two.
Not to mention, the two best generals of the war, Grant and Sherman. They knew what needed to be done to crush the south and once Grant was put in charge, the war was concluded fairly quickly. It just took more then two years of futility for Grant to rise to the top and for Lincoln to recognize his genuis.
I think you mean Grant and Thomas. Sherman rose on Grant's coattails and the fact that his brother was a U.S. Senator.
Grant, once given full command bottled Lee up in less than two months. Once Lee was taken out, he could focus on fighting the war on multiple fronts. The war was virtually over by the end of 1864 and by May of 1865, the remaining major armies were defeated. Grant was “THE man!”
@@GBU61 I got a not to mention for you, the war was over by July 63, so the only hope the south had was beating Lincoln at the ballot box. So the murder was on the southern government.
Worst generals in American history!
@@aaronfleming9426 Sherman's march to Georgia is depicted by southern commentators as a cakewalk. It was only so because of Sherman's genius.
Joe Johnston, by then, was doing the only possible strategy -- fight, delay, retreat. He was relieved for his trouble. Hood (under Davis' approving direction) marched north, hoping to force Sherman to abandon the attack on Atlanta. After all, by then, Sherman had very long supply lines in hostile territory.
Instead, Sherman coolly decided Hood was over aggressive and rightly figured that Thomas would take care of Hood. And, boy did Thomas do _that_. But we know that only in retrospect. Sherman _abandoned_ his supply lines and lived off the land in the march through Georgia. Neither Davis nor Hood expected what they got from Sherman.
Not to mention his own work in the Vicksburg campaign which was far more equal in terms of forces in the key battles than normally credited by apologists who are desperate to somehow discredit Grant and Sherman -- the architects of the defeat they still want to wish away.
One thing about the South's Strategic Mistakes. It's not like the North didn't make MORE mistakes - it's just that with the first two things mentioned - The South could not afford to make *_ANY_* .
The South had better leaders at the beginning of the war - but - as they took loses - they could not replace them.
The North had trouble with their leadership early on - but - as the war went - the better leaders rose up to the top and the worse leaders went by the wayside. They had more people coming up all the time - so that if they lost someone - there WAS someone to replace them.
It is really a testament to the courage and intelligence of the Southern Armies that they lasted as long as they did.
Saying that it was a Strategic Mistake to Attack - that isn't so. Attacking Strategically would put the North on the defensive. The thing is - Attacking Strategically - Tactically they needed to defend.
Tactically - the weapons of the day and the lack of communications - lent a very real advantage to troops defending behind a stone wall, wooden fence or in a sunken road. Using voice, bugle and flag communications - they were still fighting in the same shoulder to shoulder formations used since Ancient History. This caused them to take more casualties they they would if they could have spread out. Things hadn't changed much by WWI and the casualties were even more horrendous.
What Lee tried to do at Gettysburg was what Napoleon had done at Austerlitz. Both hit the enemy on both flanks, which at Austerlitz resulted in the Austrians having committed all their reserves so that when Napoleon hit them in the middle - they broke. Napoleon did that all on one day - but Picket's Charge at Gettysburg was on the 3rd day. The North had lots of time to adust their forces and commit reinforcements.
That - and Napoleon was going against Muskets of 1805 with a much, much shorter range than the Union Rifles of 1863.
The other thing Napoleon had - was Heavy Cavalry - which was designed to plow through an enemy unit. No one used Heavy Cavalry in 1863 any more - again - because of the difference in infantry weapons between the two battles. They'd have just been slaughtered.
The thing is - the Military Leadership of the Civil War had spent their lives studying the Napoleonic wars - and that (I believe) was why Lee did what he did at Gettysburg.
The other thing that Lee says - is that it was all his fault - for thinking that they were Invincible. After all his victories - it can be understood why he might feel that way. He thought he could do what the Union had failed to do at Fredericksburg - and he was wrong.
.
Stonewall Jackson’s death was a major blow for the south
@@larryyoder4861 Not just Stonewall, but all the other officers and men that also died between 1861 and mid 1863. Some professor or other has a video where he details this in exhaustive detail. Very convincing. The south literally bled out its advantage in officers and men.
But, you can read it in the histories. You hear about southern daring do early on. Later on, it is all about things like Little Round Top where not only do the union soldiers not run -- they fight and win under circumstances that would have routed them earlier in the war.
Stonewall's loss was a big blow -- but so was the less heralded loss of good men just like him.
#1 They started it.
#2 They started it.
#3 They started it.
#4 They lost it.
I believe the term is "FAFO."
Wrong, wrong, wrong, correct
@@llv5531 Rebel militias were attacking U.S. forts, stealing U.S. property, and threatening commerce, well before Fort Sumter. In some cases, rebel militias were taking those actions before their states even held secession delegations.
theazpro=no content=bot..
@@chance20m Best answer I've heard to date!
And on top of everything the North just had some really great leaders and once those leaders eventually got put into the right positions in the U.S. Army, the South's days were numbered.
You taling about grant ? The one people in the north called a butcher for loosing so many of their sons needlessly?
@@doughoward6401 Not sure how much you really know about the Civil War but at the time of the Overland campaign, Lee wasn't able to come up with any strategies batter than "entrench and defend." when assaulting an entrenched position, you WILL take high casualties. That's just a fact of warfare.
And despite that, overall Grant lost fewer men than Lee and with much more to show for it.
And that's just referring to the Eastern theater. Compare Grant's losses and gains during the Siege of Vicksburg to any battle Lee commanded.
@@doughoward6401ah I see history is not your strong suit.
@@KnightstruthLee couldn’t supply enough food to his troops at Petersburg. Sherman at Atlanta told his commanders to select the best, healthiest troops, before heading to Savannah. The other 50% he sent to positions to the rear. Not being as smart as Sherman Lee starved 100% his enlisted troops. This made his entire army less effective. Desertion of course went through the roof. So Lee’s army both starved, then shrank by desertion. When the food supply shrank Lee did not immediately shrink his army. Not the actions of a great strategic thinker.
@@billsmith5109This is why Montgomery Meigs is the best general. He kept the Union in the fight long enough for the army to get better trained and figure out who the best generals were.
The South's strategy of a quick offensive war was the main cause of defeat. Given its smaller army, military and economic resources, it should have fought a defensive war of attrition until the North got tired of the losses and signed a peace treaty. Lee's strategy to attack the North with the hope of a quick victory was a fatal mistake.
Johnston understood this but was overruled. While he may not have been the battlefield general Lee was, he had a superior strategic vision.
yes,we conviently over look that if france had not entered on our side george washington would be a forgotten terrorist.
Well said!
But you cannot hope to win a war that way. The Japanese tried that in WWII, and also lost.
@@joeylawn36111 It works, North Vietnam did it, Afghanistan did it too. They lost every battle but won the wars because they outlasted the opposing side.
Looking in from outside the USA it would at times appear that the USA still hasn't completely recovered from this civil war.
Yes, that's true, even from inside the USA.
Alexis DeToqueville wrote in his 1834 book, Democracy in America, "The moderns, then, after they have abolished slavery, have three prejudices to contend against, which are less easy to attack and far less easy to conquer than the mere fact of servitude: the prejudice of the master, the prejudice of the race, and the prejudice of color." Segregation was the law of the land until the 1960's
You would be correct.
I wonder how the millions of Confederate flag wavers across the U.S.A., in both the North and the South would react, if a movie about the Civil War from the side of the southerners who fought for the Union was made?
See the "Free State of Jones"
@@wlewisiii Yes, I did this movie "The Free State of Jones".
Newt Knight was not a Southern Unionist. They address that in the actual movie.
Another sap who thinks Hollywood portrays real history.
And above all these things they were so close to win the war. Brave men, both sides.
Can't you just turn up the background noise a bit?
I could almost hear the narrator, Jeezus
The south had no chance. No capacity to make what was needed for war.Naval blockades kept supplies at a minimum.
The 3 reasons: outnumbered, outnumbered, outnumbered.
Rhett Butler explained this in Tone With The Wind long ago.
The headline is grammatically incorrect. What does this say about the rest of the segment?
Great points but Europe did supply the South with resources like the Battleship Alabama until 1863 when Emancipation Proclamation was declared. When that happened the South lost its resources from Europe
Private companies supplied those ships. They stopped because the actual governments banned the manufacture and sale of arms to the Confederacy.
What ever did they do to those photos?
The south idolized Robert Lee. However, he wasn't a great strategic leader. Every city in the south should have had teenches like at Fredericksburg. Fighting offensively was stupid. He thought he was Napoleon.
It's basically the same reason that the Japanese could never have defeated the US in WWII, industrial power combined with total mobilisation. Germany may have been defeated eventually, but probably at the cost of the USSR dominating all of continental Europe, or the even more devastating cost of the war going nuclear some time between 1947 and 1952.
Good point. And in both cases, the losing side suffered a blockade and starvation.
Yes! I thought I was the only one who liked to compare the Confederacy to the Japanese during WW2. Two societies obsessed with honor and proud of their military tradition that thought that their real or perceived superior warrior spirit could defeat the might of the United States. Sorry, not happening.
BS if it was not for the BPF you would not have gotten any where near the japanese mainland do you actually know history?¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The confederacy had a lot of soldiers and leaders with no training and experience. This is especially true for the confederate soldiers in Kentucky. There were confederate units surrounded at night during sleeping hours because they failed to post guards around the encampment. This happened more than once and once in broad daylight.
One word: Lincoln...
Yes. Lincoln was much better than Davis.
And he was a Republican .
Three reasons the Confederacy lost the war:
1. Ulysses S. Grant
2. Phillip Sheridan
3. William Tecumseh Sherman
On battlefield, yes but the intellectual force that created the strategy to win was Winfield Scott. Lee was Scott's Chief of Staff in the Mexican War but learned nothing. Grant was a junior officer but learned everything he need to win when in command.
The telegraph. Lincoln was getting reports from the field while battles were still being fought. Troops and supplies could be moved to where they were needed.
Slavery is wrong evil wrong and evil never prevails in the long run
A subtle reasons was State’s rights. President Davis called for Day of Prayer. Several State Governors were furious at Davis’s action. One State had a day of Prayer but they pointedly had it a different day.
During the Petersburg campaign many Southern regiments were in rags & went barefoot because their State governments could not afford to provide shoes & clothing. At the same time some States had warehouses full stocked & their troops were easily provided with the basic needs of the soldiers…of that Specific state
Interesting and informative video. One glaring mistake was the fact that Britain was the primary supplier of weapons and ammunition to the Confederacy. If not for Britain's never-ending scheming against the USA, and its logistical support for the Confederacy, the Civil War might never have happened. In light of these historical facts, it could be said the Civil War was, in reality, the 3rd War for Independence the USA fought against Britain.
Although the number of factories was mentioned, I've read that the South had no canon factories while the North had several. In a war like this, artillery was critical.
That is not true the south had one foundry at the beginning of the war but opened several more during the war. Then add although in limited supply I never read anything about a shortage of artillery in the south. I read plenty of times about shortages of ammunition, but never the artillery
Usually the history talks about how the Confederacy had superior military leadership, at least in the first few years. But it wasn't enough to make a difference, and eventually the Union promoted the more competent leaders and got the upper hand.
Interestingly these same three reasons could be applied to Germany in WW2. The Allies could outproduce Germany. It was always short of resources, something that held up the German army on the Eastern Front on several occasions and is why they were using horse drawn wagons throughout the war. Most of their allies were more than a hinderance than a help and Japan was too busy doing its own thing to help Germany.
And too many of their troops were busy occupying large parts of Europe to be of use in Russia. 250,000 men were tied up in Norway because we convinced them the British 4th Army was going to land in Norway. The 4th Army had last seen action in the 100 Days Campaign which led to the defeat of Germany in 1918.
When the Nazis invaded Russia they brought more horses than powered vehicles. The German infantry units depended on a virtual complete rout by the panzers as it sometimes took days for the walking troops to reach the front. They also vastly underestimated the human resources, the technical prowess, "General Winter", and the patriotism of the Russians. Finally they needed the petroleum resoures of Azerbaijan to continue effective fighting for more than six months.
read Shelby Foote`s 3 book set of the war and you will know as much as you need to know. great stuff, he writes as if he was there
Foote echoed what was said in this video by saying “the Union basically fought the war with one hand tied behind its back”-meaning that life went on pretty much as normal up North, while the war badly affected Everyone in the South.
Foote spews lost cause bullshit.
Mr Foote thought it would take about 5 years to write that book. 20 years later he wrapped it up😂. Having read hundreds of books on the subject I must say his was the most accurately detailed of them all.
#1) fighting for a fundamentally flawed cause
Come down to North Carolina and live amongst the lifelong locals. You will quickly learn why their ancestors lost the war.
Explain???
I'm from NC!
Well perhaps but no different to the vacuous zombie inbred of the north! I know where I d choose to live.
@@mrclarkson3812 I think he's suggesting there might not be enough diversity in our gene pool...
@@mrclarkson3812 I think it's because they are not quite the brightest bulbs.
We moved to South Carolina 9 years ago and notice it frequently.
HOWEVER, people here are incredibly friendly and courteous even to strangers.
Blacks here are wonderfully friendly and a joy to chat with.
It's just that the schools need to catch up. No insult intended.
(Clarkson?--JB. CCT1970)
then move back to the sewer you came from! Tim!
Not a single large foundry or cannon factory in the South !
I think I once heard they had one ball bearing plant while the union had many.
Nope they had the Tredegar Iron Works
@@kwaii_gamer And Tannehill Ironworks near what's now Birmingham. (Cool site) But they're right. There weren't many.
@@talmadgewalker279 They absolutely were at a disadvantage, but that was one of the costs of slavery. It made no economic sense to increase industrial production when you could just sell a few slaves.
@@kwaii_gamer Yep. Absolutely.
I am not convinced that given the first 2 factors the South trying to fight a defensive war was a better strategy than trying for a significant offensive victory to try and negotiate an end to the war. A prolonged war of attrition was not a winning strategy for the South.
That was certainly what the southerners themselves thought.
But a _slow_ war of attrition might have been just as good as the aggressive one they actually fought. We forget how shocked _everyone_ was to the scale of casualties in the US Civil War. Not for nothing is it called the first modern war. But that means that a slower war of fewer casualties might have turned northern opinion just as successfully as the big battles did.
The truth is, once Gettysburg and Vicksburg happened, all the advantages went to the north. It was still a close run thing -- Lincoln's reelection was in some doubt until perhaps Atlanta fell, maybe even later on. Still, it became clear even to civilians that the war had turned by the end of 1863. It's just a question of whether the northern voters could stand the cost to finish the job. They did.
And, it was rational for them to do so.
This was the 19th century. There is a hidden assumption made by many that if the south won, that would have been it. Nope. The US Southwest and even Mexico were going to become battlefields. That's the way nations worked in those days. So, even if the north lets the south go, it is just a prelude to two, maybe three, maybe even four future wars.
One other significant consideration: rich man’s war, poor man’s fight. I don’t believe the south was unified in fighting for the constitutionally defined concept of the confederacy. Slavery may have been the status quo the people grew up with, but when it came to risking your life defending it, I would believe there was great reluctance. The initial wave of volunteers. “defending their homeland from the rapacious Yankees“ gave way to the forced draft system. Statistics show how blatantly forced enlistments were resisted.
I expected some Lost Cause nonsense, but this turned out to be a good, brief summary of the subject matter. Very much an overview, but still pretty accurate.
Also the south was bitterly divided against itself. Over 250,000 white and black men from the CSA states fought in the Federal army
I wonder how the millions of Confederate wavers across the U.S.A., both in the north and the south, would react if a movie were made about the Civil War, from the side of the southerners who fought for the Union?
My Great-great- grandfather was a Confederate deserter from the Army of Tennessee
We lost because we were outnumbered 2 to 1 and the North was willing to commit war crimes. Even then they lost twice as many men as the South.
1) the will ness to louse 3/4 of it men at battle and not correct the problem . 2) Lee a great soldier could or would not adjust to changing tactics 3) southern general in conflict with each other (Natcheza good example it was three battles fought and won but still )
All your points are valid, but Gettysburg happened because, by1863, Lee realized that merely fending off Union attacks in the east, while Grant was on the verge of capturing Vicksburg and splitting the Confederacy in two wasn't strategicly viable. Gettysburg was part of Lee's strategy of encircling and capturing Washington DC.
Jonny Reb got a good taste of the Show-me State at the battle of
Pilot-Knob. The gray coats never recovered from the casualties suffered there in. Missouri held the keys 🔑 to the lead mines , railroad, and Mississippi/Missouri waterways. My great, great grandfather was a Union soldier who fought and defended the Fort at Pilot Knob and at the end of the day over 1.500 rebs lay dead of wounded on the battlefield.
🦅🇺🇸🦅
The confederacy actually did engage in commerce and receive support from foreign powers, but it was all through back channels and below the radar.
In other words, the war between the States was over when the first shot was fired...............
In short, never start something you can't finish.
The North, under Grant in particular, stopped prisoner exchanges which were common in the early years of the war. This decision was brutally hard on the POW on both sides, since neither side allocated many resources to the care of the prisoners. This was only part of Grant's plan of total warfare. Sherman's march to the sea was about the division of the South, disruption of the last railways connecting the isolated theaters of war, and the destruction of anything that could be considered contraband in its broadest definition.
Initially not by design. The south would send captured African American Union troops back into slavery...
A lot of people died in a war that the South were destined to lose.
Related Bad Joke 'O the Day: Go to your Printer and grab a Blank sheet of Paper. Hold it up to a friend/coworker and ask them this: "What's This - Other than a piece of Paper????
Answer: Last Flag of the Confederacy. 😉🙃😛
Sounds like God was on the side of the righteous!
Beans, bullets, and bandages. In other words, supplies of all types and the ability to distribute them and troops. Logistics wins or loses many wars.
But yes, these other points are valid as well.
Logistics is for armchair generals.
Economics puts that armchair in harm's way...
The Confederacy dominated the first half of the war. But Southern commanders mostly were educated at the Citadel. They were taught to be brave and lead from the front in order to set an example. As a result a lot of them died. Generals Like Lee became isolated not trusting the judgment of their staff. Incompetence played a big role in the the downfall of the Confederacy
Jeff Davis knew all these things but his ego was so confident that he could do anything. I hold Davis as the number one reason for the failure of the Confederacy.
What is really pathetic is that he was arguably the best they had. Outside of Breckenridge probably nobody else could do a better job. As far as confidence well they drank the Kool-aid, and were confident that nobody would dare make war upon King Cotton!
@@kwaii_gamer Davis had been the Sec of Defense when all these Officers had fought in Mexico together. He knew from experience what municians and material was necessary to take on such an immense war and he knew the Confederacy did not have it. The shoes, clothes, food, blankets, horsefeed, ammunition, guns, arterillary, medical supplies, needed to be stockpiled in warehouses. There needed to be ships. There needed to be shared materials for all states.
Instead the South had big egos. To me it was stupid to Declare War when so obviously unprepared.
It is really interesting to read Quartermaster supply lists. Clearly Jeff Davis was not ready.
@@sharonchristian8508 Davis was one of the biggest heroes to come out of the Mexican American war (1846-1848). His infantry held the line at Monterrey. He was Sec of War from 1853-1857. But yes he like most southerners he had a big ego.
@@kwaii_gamer I agree. He had the experience and could have been successful if he had used his influence to slow things down and prepare. Ships, railroads, munition factories, food supplies, troop training all could have been supplied with some caution and diplomacy.
@@sharonchristian8508 FYI from his position as Sec of War Davis ensured that the southern armories were full, but unguarded. He didn't declare war he succeeded, and he expected the north to simply let them go, and if not then the south was initially better supplied than the north (see above), and after that he expected England to supply them with armaments.
Starved the South in submission.
Have I ever wondered? no. because it was pretty obvious. in place of your #3 i would say lack of internal support in he deep south as many states wouldn't support each other. The south had to try to be aggressive becasue if they just sat there, eternally on the defense, they would eventually be worn down. the plan for things like the gettysburg campaign was sound- take the war into the north and make the voters feel the pressure. the fact they bobbled it on the battle field does not invalidate the plan.
Same reason the Allies won over Germany and Japan in WWII: numerical advantages in every way, enormously greater industrial capacity, dislike of racial discrimination. These are the real 'aces in the hole'; not just dedication to a cause.
Dislike of racial discrimination? Huh?
Clarification for "dislike of racial discrimination": "Dislike of German thinking that THEY were the supreme race (group of people) in the world and the ONLY people who should have any say in running it."
Because bullets hurt.
logistics
We could add the fact that there wasn't ANY (at least of the heavy type) political meddling in military affairs, contrary to wars as Korea or Vietnam the military were allowed to make the best decisions to win the war, and probabilly this, on the long term, saved more lives, imagine if there was been a leader such as Johnson, obsessed by micro-managing everything, or worst, the UN !
Lincoln meddled a lot I thought. Why did he keep firing his generals? As for the UN: most of the time they've been trying to stop wars between states hell bent on prosecuting them. I wish they meddled more often and more successfully
I believe the most important factor was international lack of support. Nobody in the world helped the South to avoid losing the war, that even so, came after 5 years of heavy fighting and heavy on both sides. France was normal to be neutral. While the British Empire and Mexico despite their hope of a secession of USA, the geography were against them. Mexico would have backed the South, but how to help an entity that took your lands. On the other side, the British Empire could have backed the South, but helping them out directly, would have been a logistical nightmare, sending troops over Atlantic. Another solution would have been to attack the North from nowadays Canada, but it was sparsely populated back then, under developed, with severe winters.
Mexico was _never_ going to help the confederacy. It was anti-slave. In fact, the Confederates, in a little heralded part of the war, did try and destabilize Mexico. Southerners talked about conquering Mexico (which had, after all, been done by many of these same soldiers).
Britain was _not_ going to attack the US. They may have provided recognition, even some weapons. But, they had no taste by then for taking on the United States. They had, after all, lost in that theater twice and even taking Washington DC in 1812 bought them nothing.
Truth is, the vaunted British Navy -- the best in the world -- had better things to do than try and disrupt the US blockade of the south. They would have done well and won a lot. But not enough to justify the 'investment'. Overt support of a slave society was also not in the cards, really. Britain abolished slavery in 1834. So, support for the south would have always been a delicate dance not really supported by the British voter. Paying a blood price to support the south is somewhere between difficult to "don't even bring it up."
there is one reason - the south never had a chance
Not wrong, but could we please have some explanations of the advantages the Confederacy had and how the Union managed to overcome those disadvantages?
I’ll give you one: At the beginning of the war, the South had superior leadership. Lee was an excellent General, while the Union Generals were rather timid, much to the chagrin of CoC President Lincoln and led to Union defeats. But this all changed when one Ulysses S Grant took charge of the Union Army, who, along with General William Tecumseh Sherman basically started kicking a**, winning the war in 1865.
Size the confederacy was huge and without railways the north was dependent on rivers but even so they had to leave large amounts of troops to protect their supply lines
@@joeylawn36111 I hate defending McClellan, but he kept the Army of the Potomac alive long enough to become the major fighting force it was.
Southern soldiers had grown up using guns as kids and teens and were easier to train. As the war went on, northern soldiers became more professional and the training gap was erased.
@@michaelanderson2881 That was only true in the east...they were even in the west, and as western forces integrated with the eastern forces...then add the training you mention.
The Vietnam War contradicted this.
Gods will
And the supply of slaves switched to the supply of Irish and other immigrants to the north to conscript into service.
If the rebels used gorilla war tactics , like the viet cong , there might have been a different outcome .
The South never stood a chance as long as Lincoln was President. Lincoln was determined to save the Union at all costs. The South would have had to capture Washington, then Philadelphia, then New York City, then Boston, then Chicago, then Lincoln would have retreated to Alcatraz in San Francisco harbor and still would have never surrendered or negotiated a peace that did not include the South remaining in the Union. The South never stood a chance.
The 🇬🇧 did suffer, we had the Lancashire cotton famine the results the mills closed some for two years as they relied on cotton from the southern states which came into Liverpool the Empire cotton imports not the quality like Egyptian cotton mainly towels American cotton clothes, also a few years after the Irish famine Irish emigrants suffering again as most mill workers where ☘️ all based in and around Manchester.
I'll give you four reasons the Confederacy lost: Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, and Farragut. That's why the South lost. They had no leaders to match those great Union officers.
three reasons ? like Napoleon said, money, money, money
Tell me again why having China having all manufacturing and the USA none , is not a strategic mistake.
Also the Union blockades hurt the South too in getting resources
Without reading all of the comments, does somebody suggest that “God” was on the side of the Union? He seems to come up in every discussion here 🙄
They lost because of Lincoln,, Lincoln, Lincoln
Because they didnt enter Washington when they had the chance - that was their only option !
Way less money, man , territory , guns it was an impossible fight the confederates where impressive militar if they were a litle bit more equal in anything with the union the would beat their asses
Imagine fighting and dying to keep slavery going 😂 sad guys
4th - God was on the North's side.
So in other words, they lost due to typical Conservative thinking.
A.I. photo s really sucked
I think president Trump also included the fact that the union was able to capture the Confederate air bases in late 1863.
Lmao trump is bad guy 👍
Sad 24k hits and cant even ----ing spell confederacy lol
Interesting point but then can we explain US loss to Taliban after 20 years and far superior technology and almost unlimited resources? Maybe if the south would have just waged guérilla style warfare they too would have achieved their goal of independence.
Guerilla war like in Afghanistan and Vietnam would have run into the slaves being an ..."inconvenience" ...for the South.
Resources resources resources that's the only reason they lost. The military leaders and soldiers of the south were far ahead of there northern counter parts! But bless both the Brave and Honorable Confederate and Union soldiers.
GOD WAS NOT ON THEIR SIDE
They won because it was God's doings
north had 1/2 million immigrant soldiers drafted so it could take endless losses.
that and the fast that france did nor aid them as in our revolution,or england did nor break the blockade made all the difference.
Yep, by the time of the US Civil War, France and England had long ago abolished slavery, and did not like the fact that the Confederacy still allowed Slavery, so they stayed out of the war. Plus, the Monroe Doctrine of a few decades before had effectively banned European involvement .
Not to mention that a considerable part of the Southern population (including all African Americans) supported the North. Arguably, more Southerners served in the Union army than the Confederate army - especially after Blacks were allowed to enlist. While some Northerners were sympathetic to the Confederacy, very few Northerners even considered joining the Confederate army.
With the advantages that the North had over the South, the. North should have won the war in 1-2 years. Instead they won a war of attrition which lasted four years. Although slavery was wrong on so many levels, the South should be given credit for lasting so long
The North just didn't have fighting generals. Had they, you're correct, it should have only lasted 1 or 2 years.
McClellan, Pope, Burnside, Hooker.
They might've been fine at division or even Corps level. But they were in sore need of actual visionary leadership, which was waiting out west.
Grant, Sherman, George Thomas.
Wonderful generalship.
Agreed. The South started out with much better Generals! The better Union Generals were in the West. And as much as Lee and Jackson won in the East, the Union won in the West and Ohio Valley Campaigns. It was the Southern Generals who turned the War from a 2 year War into a 4 year War. It also took time to fully Blockade the South. Once the Anaconda strategy was finally achieved and Sherman cut the South in half, it was over.
You're highlighting the advantages the North had, while ignoring the advantages the South had. Considering that the Union had an army of a whopping 16,000 men in 1861, and had to conquer a land area larger than had been successfully conquered since Ghengis Khan, it's actually pretty stunning that the Union was able to win at all.
If what you say is true then the south were idiots as they started a war they knew or should have known they could not win
No I have never wondered why they lost. Manpower, money, machines, men movement etc issues aside, the principle flaw with the Confederates was 'MOTIVATION'! They were, like the NAZIS almost 100 years later fighting for a wrong unsustainable cause. I believe the educated among them knew that and the Rebel Yell ran it's course. It killed their enthusiasm.
Hmmm...so taking up arms to repel an invading force is the same a being a Nazi? You should write a book. You're obviously well educated in history.
It was an international war!
The pre war union was between free, sovereign states who had the freedom to join or leave it.
Lincoln's reasons for war didn't make sense and so, it could be argued that he carried out an unjust war.
The sovereignty of the states after the war was compromised, as is seen by a District of Columbia that is a special economic zone, ruling the states.
Men. Money machinery..the south was outnumbered on all three
1. They were evil..
2. They were democrat.
3. Lack of industry.
They weren't necessarily evil. Most rank and file Confederates simply believed they were fighting for their homes and their "country" though, ultimately, their "country" and their efforts supported an evil institution.
As for being "Democrat," that had absolutely NOTHING to do with the outcome of the war. In any case, the Democrats of the 1860s have MUCH more in common with the Republicans of today (not that it matters for purposes of this discussion).
As for industry, the South DID have it, just not anywhere near as much as the North.
The reason the south lost is the didn't have God on there side .
1. I think the Southern lost began, when the (slave system) border states sent a lot of white Southerners to the just forming Mid West territories as Ohio, Indiana and Illinois. The best example Abraham Lincoln family, which rooted from North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and Kentucky. The all Midwest states were Southerner majority areas untill 1830. Only Ohio got bigger Central statats (Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey) settlers and a few New Englander settlers untill 1830! The abolution movement had background only in Ohio, for example U.S. Grant's family. Eliya P. Lovejoy was killed by proslavery mob in Altona Illinois after he was chased away from the slavery system Missouri. Illinois forbade the abolution agitation and only Abraham Lincoln + 6-7 delegates voted agains this Illinois state's rule!!!!!!!!!!
2. After 1800 the majority of European immigrant went to similar sociaty (climate) territories as they lived in Europe. Without slavery system and similar field corps cultivated areas were the preferable for them! The new Central States and the New Englander settler arrived by steambouts in the chanal system and mainly by train later. Indiana and Illinois became Abraham Lincoln majority voters by 1860!
3. The Cotton King won on the Tobbaco (+hem) King so the new corps the cotton demanded more and more slaves so the border states exported slaves to the Deep South and a new slave impoter state Texas. The border states slave population declined year after year.
(Upper Border states) Missouri had 9.7% slaves, Kentucky had 19.5% slaves, Delaware had 1.6% slaves, Maryland had 12.7% slaves the futue West Virginia had fewer than 5% slave population. Missouri got hugh European and Free state settlers, 2 counties voted for Abraham Lincoln in 1860! St Louis was a big prounionist center during the Civil War. Deep South got fewer European immigrants and Free State settlers than Mid West or the Upper Border states. So the Northern human source for soldiers became bigger year after year. Perhaps a Civil War in 1850 could have been stalemate, but for 1860 the industrial North had big advantage in humane resource, industrial capacity, railroad system, tax and tariff income. The two Superpowers France and United Kingdom abolished the slavery system between 1833 and 1848, so any possibility for foreign help lost for a Slavery Civilization forever!
Eli Whitney’s invention of the Cotton Gin did more to expand slavery than just about anything else. More cotton could be produced and $old, but more slaves were needed to pick the cotton.
@@joeylawn36111 The slave population % decreased year after year in the upper border states as Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Delaware and the future West Virginia counties. The Cotton King slave import decreased Kentucky slave population from about 24% by 1850 to about 19% by 1860! 10% of Missouri voted to Lincoln or 24% in Delaware in 1860.
AI generated garbage
Even if AI generated it, there was nothing untrue in the video. I know my history.