Instead, it was quite the opposite, and the South had the ability to be victorious during the war, or at least force a negotiated settlement from the North. At no time, according to this study, did the Union forces achieve the preponderance of manpower necessary both to defeat Confederate forces and occupy Confederate territory.
Defeat was ultimately due to a loss of collective will. Diverse opinions have appeared in hundreds of books, but the numerous possibilities have never adequately been summarized and gathered together in one place. In fact, most Confederates assessed the size of their new nationsquare milesthe length of their coastline more than 3, milesand their assumed martial superiority and concluded that Union victory was impossible.
First, the political culture in the South made it difficult for the many people including those in leadership positions in the Confederacy who wanted a negotiated settlement to make their will felt. In the North you certainly had dialogue and debate on the war aims, but losing the Union was never really a part of that discussion.
Even while it was happening, men like Union officer Joshua Chamberlain—who did all that he could to defeat the Confederacy—could not help but admire the dedication of those soldiers. The South certainly did not lose for any lack of idealism, or dedication to its cause or beliefs, or bravery and skill on the battlefield.
Could the Confederacy have won the Civil War? We tend in Why the South Lost to imply that there was really still hope until March ofbut really I think the outcome of the war became inevitable in November with the reelection of Lincoln and that utter determination to see the thing through, and, of course, the finding of U.
Inwith the approach of the presidential election in the North, the Confederates had another opportunity to win the war. The most notable of these sins was slavery, and many preachers conveyed that the South was bound to lose this war because God was punishing them for slavery.
The primary reason the Confederates did not have more success on the battlefield is that they developed only one really talented army commander, and that, of course, was Robert E.
The Confederacy went into the conflict knowing that would be the case. The South was way outclassed industrially. The primary source for the South was to pick them up on the battlefields after the Union Army withdrew from immediate contact. While the Union blockade of the Confederacy — helped immensely by the capture of important ports such as New Orleans, Mobile, and Wilmington — did almost completely stop the flow of material from other countries afterillicit trade with the North through the border states of Kentucky, Missouri, and Maryland was harder to stop, and kept a trickle of much-needed supplies flowing right up to the very end of the war.
Nevertheless, they insist, the economic situation primarily affected the civilian population; the military forces continued to be relatively well supplied up to the very end of the struggle. Why did the South lose?
The flow of supplies and transportation was vital to success. The other part of the answer is that while the key Confederate commanders—Beauregard, Lee, Joe Johnston—were trying to maximize their military position so as to influence any kind of peace negotiations and give the North an incentive to allow the South to reenter the Union on somewhat its own terms, military mistakes in the late winter and early spring of scuttled the Confederate military position in Virginia and the Carolinas.
An extensive amount of the populace could not be called upon to fight. For many men of the South, they fought the war to protect their homes and families, and once those were in the hands of the North, there was no longer a reason to fight.
The war was lost by the Confederates in the West and won by the Federals in the West. Due to this defensive orientation and other military advantages such as the long-range rifle, the authors conclude that the Confederacy had several military assets in their favor as the war began.
The focus on the east creates an illusion that Confederate armies were better led. Most of the leaders on both sides had trained and served together in the pre-war Army; many were brothers-in-arms as young officers in the Mexican War 20 years earlier.
A reader would expect nothing less from four such distinguished historians of the conflict as these, and the attentive reader of Why the South Lost the Civil War will certainly be rewarded.
Grant by Lincoln and company.
How important each one was is a matter of opinion and ever-shifting debate. The unavoidable problem with the Southern strategic situation is that the initiative lay entirely with the North; Union forces could strike wherever it seemed most advantageous to do so, and the Confederate forces would largely be limited to reacting to it.
Families were torn apart, towns destroyed. In addition, Union control of this region was a strategic gain because it allowed the North to launch repeated forays into the Shenandoah Valley and beyond. Instead many supported the cause for fear of being castigated by their neighbors and community.
So, one key reason the South lost is that as time went on and the war got serious, Southerners began losing faith in the cause because it really did not speak to them directly. Beringer and his colleagues admit that economic problems hurt the Confederacy, especially when its vital rail network was disrupted.
Causes of Confederate Defeat in the Civil War. Despite the long-held notion that the South had all of the better generals, it really had only one good army commander and that was Lee.
Why did the South not only lose its bid for independence but also its bid to influence the terms under which reunion would take place? The question of exactly what weight to ascribe to the various elements—both internal and external—can never be fully resolved.
This claim was made in their book, Attack and Die: By pointing to high Southern desertion rates, particularly those by soldiers who deserted once their homes were occupied by Northern soldiers, the authors illustrate this point effectively. Judging from these responses, it seems clear that the South could have won the war.
The criticism of Confederate leaders impeded their ability to lead effectively and, among a smaller group, probably represented a true shift in allegiances back to the Union.Jul 05, · The four authors of Why the South Lost the Civil War have clearly read and understood Clausewitz, for their volume is an excellent study that combines a careful exploration of the frontlines and.
Causes of Confederate Defeat in the Civil War Contributed by Aaron Sheehan-Dean The surrender of Confederate general Robert E. Lee 's Army of Northern Virginia at Appomattox Court House on April 9,effectively ended.
An extensive amount of effort has gone into studying the American Civil War. The reasons for the war and its outcome remain hotly debated. The following are nine of the many arguments that have been put forward for why the Confederacy lost.
Gettysburg. The Battle of Gettysburg is one of the most famous tipping points in history. Sep 24, · / Why the South Lost the Civil War Although the reasons for the defeat of the Confederacy in the American Civil War are debated just as energetically as the causes of the war, the answer to the question, “Why did the South lose the war?” was actually answered a long time ultimedescente.comon: N Cave Creek Rd, Phoenix, The Confederacy lost the Civil War for a variety of reasons, chief among them a lack of resources and manpower.
The North had more soldiers, more manufacturing and agricultural capacity, and the ability to blockade Southern ports. In a word: slavery. Two outstanding books review the myriad reasons that the North won and the South lost the Civil War: David Herbert Donald Why the North Won the Civil War () (including essays by Donald, Henry Steele Commager, Richard N.
Current, T. Harry Williams, Norman A. Graebner, and David M. Potter); and Gabor Borritt Why the Confederacy Lost .Download