MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
So you are saying Kentucky and West Virginia was more pro-Union than Confederate?
U.S. Civil War
So you are saying Kentucky and West Virginia was more pro-Union than Confederate?
Very much so. Western Va. had much more in common with the "free' states of Ohio, Indiana and Illinois than with the part of Virginia east of the mountains. Also eastern Tennessee was very pro Union. Before War really broke out both the Union & Confederates had recruiting stations in Knoxville. western Tn. was very pro Confederate & eastern Tenn. was very pro union. There was a scheme to try to establish a union State of East Tenn., but the area remained in CS hands until too late in '64 for a new State to be of any help to Lincoln's re-election efforts.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I understood the West Virginia thing but didn't know about Kentucky, I have always seen it as part of the Southern USA, I knew it was a fairly volatile state but did not know that the views were split on regional line rather than a town-country line.
So was there any way the Confederacy could have survived?
Seems to me that it lacked the industrial, communications and transport capacity to have waged a protracted war, therefore, its only real chance was to either fight an effective defensive war (which is practically impossible), find a negotiated settlement or win a fast war.
Given that it showed no signs of doing any of those three things I can't see that it had any chance and you would really have to question the competency of its leadership in putting it in that position.
So was there any way the Confederacy could have survived?
Seems to me that it lacked the industrial, communications and transport capacity to have waged a protracted war, therefore, its only real chance was to either fight an effective defensive war (which is practically impossible), find a negotiated settlement or win a fast war.
Given that it showed no signs of doing any of those three things I can't see that it had any chance and you would really have to question the competency of its leadership in putting it in that position.
Last edited:
both sides expected a quick battle that would prove victorious & end the problem. The South viewed itself as superior in quality of the individual soldier that would overcome the less able Yankees. Prior to the war math books in the south had word problems such as: If one Southerner can whip 10 Yankees, how many southerners would you need to whip 90 Yankees?
Of course on paper the South had no chance, but conflicts don't always work out the way that it should on paper.
how could they have won? Hard to say. One big mistake was the self imposed embargo on exporting cotton early on. They should have exported as much cotton as possible to build their finances, and imported as much materiel as possible, before the Blockade became effective. they turned down an offer of several east Indiamen that could have been outfitted as ships-of-the-line 7 imposed a blockade on Northern ports, at least for a while, helping the CS economy and hurting the North's war efforts. If the southern army was better organized maybe they could have captured Washington after 1st Manassas ending things. In the Summer of '64 the AoT missed an opportunity to beat, at least a section, of Sherman's army north of Atlanta. If Atlanta not fallen, perhaps combined with Jubal Early capturing, even if it would have been temporary, Washington might have resulted in Lincoln losing the election and "Peace Democrats' then letting the South go.
Most history books looks at the Eastern Theatre for a period of time and then covering the western Theatre for a while before switching back to the other theatre. There is a book called "1400 days, the Civil war day by day". it looks at everything that happened on each day in all theatres in chronological order from the firing on Ft. Sumter to the end. presented this way it's really amazing to see what was going on every day.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I find the US Civil War interesting as it appears to have been the first war fought where modern parameters such as logistics, industry and communications played a decisive role but it was fought in an outdated way, essentially Napoleonic in many respects it had a lot in common with WW1.
By comparison, the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71 was a modern war being fought along more modern lines.
By comparison, the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71 was a modern war being fought along more modern lines.
The beginning and middle (in the east) were fought pretty much the same way as wats had been for the previous Century or so. The Overland Campaign and the Siege of Petersburg showed to way to the stalemate of WW 1 in the trenches. European observers were shocked by the destruction they saw on that late war period battlefields. Early in the war there was a year long stand off between Union occupied Ft. Pickens and CS held Forts McRee, Barrancas, and the Pensacola Navy Yard. After the war a proposal was found in the files in Richmond where an Officer had proposed using balloons to drop poison gas bombs into Ft. Pickens.
Are there any books out there regarding all the European's and British observers opinions and observations/lessons they learned when following the two armies during this period. I am very interested to know what they thought and what if any lessons they took back to Europe to incorporate there.
cheers
cheers
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
How about we start at the top, was there ever a way that the CSA's economy could have supported a successful war?
Negatives:
1. It had 25% the "free" population of the North.
2. 30% of the nation's Railways
3. Produced 10% of the nation's manufactured goods.
4. 3% of the nation's arms industry
Positives:
1. It accounted for 70% of the countries exports.
Looking at those numbers, it seems to me that the first major mistake the CSA made was not protecting its exports and putting more effort into breaking the blockade.
But I really don't see enough in those numbers to indicate that the South could ever have overcome the Union on the ground.
Negatives:
1. It had 25% the "free" population of the North.
2. 30% of the nation's Railways
3. Produced 10% of the nation's manufactured goods.
4. 3% of the nation's arms industry
Positives:
1. It accounted for 70% of the countries exports.
Looking at those numbers, it seems to me that the first major mistake the CSA made was not protecting its exports and putting more effort into breaking the blockade.
But I really don't see enough in those numbers to indicate that the South could ever have overcome the Union on the ground.
With out the blockade the export of cotton probably would have supported the country. In the Panic of 1857 the North had serious disruption of the economy, where the South's wasn't effected that much. As I said previously the CS Navy should have accepted the Indiamen, quickly converted them to warships and imposed a blockade on the North. no doubt the ships eventually would have been defeated, but might have given the South breathing room to build other ships. Obviously the self imposed embargo of cotton exports by some States was a disaster to finances. At least at Charleston the casemate Ironclads had too much draft to cross the bar most of the time and therefore unable to affect the blockade. Gen. Beauregard was 'dieled in" to naval efforts and advocated that the Navy build David type torpedo boats. The Hunley was an Army sub, not sure if the torpedo boats that were built were Army or Navy, but in decent numbers may have been much more usefull than the Ironclads, at least at Charleston. The inability to defend New Orleans resulted in a substantial % loss of population & industrial capacity.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Without being able to keep at least one major port open the South could not have maintained a functioning stable economy, add that to the Norths growing manufacturing capacity in terms of shipping I don't see a way the South could have even managed to keep one port open.
Was there any chance the South could have worked with Mexico via Texas?
Was there any chance the South could have worked with Mexico via Texas?
They kept Mobile, Charleston and Wilmington "open" for most of the War. They did import through Mexico, at least until the Union secured the Miss. River. The US Navy created a Rule/Law that cargo going to a belligerent through a neutral 3rd party could be seized. The Brits in WW I used the rule to seize US ships with cargo destined for Germany routed through The Netherlands.
The 3 ports were blockaded, but was porous. Significant amounts of cargo made it through, enough to keep the Confederacy running. perhaps at a slow strangulation level. Obviously would have been much better for them if they could have built vessels that could have kept the US ships away from the coast. Mobile was usable until the Aug., '64 Battle of Mobile Bay. Wilmington, N.C. & Charleston S.C. until the last months of the war in '65.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I certainly don't agree with the Revolutionary war comment, with a population of about 3 million the Colonial's had a fairly major advantage over the 50,000 British forces especially when you take into account the logistics of having to supply the British with men and war material.
That was a totally different argument to the civil war where both sides had much shorter supply lines.
from what I've seen only about 1/3 of the population supported the revolution, the rest were either Loyalists or didn't want to get involved. 1812: Read somewhere that Wellington heard rumors that he was going to be named CnC of forces in America in the War of 1812 and wrote a letter pointing out all the prestige, ect that would be risked by the UK if such a notable commander was assigned to the role. Apparently he wasn't very optimistic of British chances in that war.
Duty Honor Country
Active member
If my memory serves me correctly from my US military history class, the intercept rate at the beaning of the was was 1 in 10 and got close to 1 in 2 by the end of the war.
Check this page out if you want to explore the topic more
http://www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com/the-union-blockade-of-the-southern-states.html
Duty Honor Country
Active member
It is not as different as you think. The Union had to station troops in towns as an occupation force otherwise the Rebels would take over once the Union troops leave. I am doing primary source research on military units from my home state of Maine. We like to think of the Civil War through the large battles. To the contrary, the war had a lot of occupation duties. A very small group of Rebels would come and go as they pleased in comparison to a Union force that was far greater in number.
I am a map guy when it comes to military movements and locations. Here is a map of Fort Pickens, Pensacola, FL I pulled from the library of Congress when I was reading about the movement and actions of the 15th Maine Volunteers INF REG. There were a lor of little fortifications for just a few Rebel Calvary troops
Last edited: