Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΒ  permalink

Why did it take the North 4 years to win the American Civil War

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by allanro (U1966688) on Friday, 30th September 2005

  They had far more men than the south and much greater industrial and financial resources. So why did it take so long to bring those resources to bear? Something to do with the need to conquer the south being more difficult than defending your territory and something to do with superior southern generalship at least in the East. Anyhting else?

  Link to this forum: Why did it take the North 4 years to win the American Civil War

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Saturday, 1st October 2005

  I am far from an expert on the American Civil War, but I believe it was a combination of those two factors. The South initially had more able generals and it took the North some time to really get its manufacturing industries producing weapns and material in sufficient quantities to overwhelm the South.

  Link to this forum: Why did it take the North 4 years to win the American Civil War

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by steveP (U1775134) on Saturday, 1st October 2005

  <QUOTE' USER='TonyG' USERID='1830405'>I am far from an expert on the American Civil War, but I believe it was a combination of those two factors. The South initially had more able generals and it took the North some time to really get its manufacturing industries producing weapns and material in sufficient quantities to overwhelm the South.</QUOTE><BR /><BR />I agree but also think it should be remembered that at the time the US was a relatively minor military power. Most of what regular forces it had were deployed in the west to suppress the remaining Indians. As such it took both powers quite a while to mobilise men as well as the equipment and learn the lessons of mass warfare. This was especially important for the north as, as stated above, the task of occuplying hostile territory is far more difficult and manpower intensive than defending.<BR /><BR /> Steve<BR />

  Link to this forum: Why did it take the North 4 years to win the American Civil War

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by allanro (U1966688) on Saturday, 1st October 2005

  Even so the North mobilised substantially more volunteers than the South within the first few months. I believe generalship was a substantial reason especially in the first two years. After that I think it was down to the South's tenacity. They just wouldn't admit defeat. Of course the North was equally tenacious in pushing through to victory at the cost of great casualties on both sides.

  Link to this forum: Why did it take the North 4 years to win the American Civil War

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by jberie (U1767537) on Saturday, 1st October 2005

  Don't forget about McClelland, who although with a trained army, was too cautious to attack.
  
  And, it is more difficult to take a war to the enemy than to defend territory. The north went through a few generals before Lincoln recognized Grant.
  
  The Am. Civil War is not my area of study, but that's my two cents.

  Link to this forum: Why did it take the North 4 years to win the American Civil War

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by allanro (U1966688) on Sunday, 2nd October 2005

  I agree about McClellann and his successors weren't an improvement. Burnside just wasn't up to the job and Hooker lost his nerve at the vital moment at Chancellorsville. It was only with Meade that the army got a competent commander. When he was joined by Grant who was tenacious and cold-blooded enough to push on despite casualties it was only a matter of time before the North won.

  Link to this forum: Why did it take the North 4 years to win the American Civil War

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 2nd October 2005

  <QUOTE' USER='allanro' USERID='1966688'>They had far more men than the south and much greater industrial and financial resources. So why did it take so long to bring those resources to bear? Something to do with the need to conquer the south being more difficult than defending your territory and something to do with superior southern generalship at least in the East. Anyhting else?</QUOTE><BR /><BR />I'm afraid all I can bring to this is further generalisations which are true (I believe).<BR /><BR />1. Lincoln was determined to win the ACW based upon the U.S. Constitution, which like all legal documents can only be tested fully in a crucible of truth, normally a court of law, however for the not so United States of America the internal and external forces meant it would take a Civil War. It took some time for Lincoln to present to the people of the northern states of the U.S. what this meant.<BR /><BR />2. The northern states whilst being far superior in terms of manpower and industry lacked miltary leadership and tradition. Many of the immigrants to the US had gone there to escape oppression and miltary service. It's going to take some time and persuasion in the form of cold hard cash and other benefits to persuade/coerce the manpower to enlist. The Southern States had this principle in place through the militia.<BR /><BR />3. From what I understand the majority of the military leadership of the USA prior to the Civil War went South at the outbreak of Civil War. examples Lee, Jackson, Hardee, Hill (A.P. and D.H.) Beauregard, Bragg, Johnston (A.S. and Joe). Very few stayed with the Federals. Winfield Scott whose plan actually won the war, McDowell, Sherman possibly, and as I am a big fan George Thomas, here I'm struggling to name any more senior Commanders who stayed with the North whose names were known prior to it.<BR /><BR />4. Political Considerations. Thankfully the British (sort of) kept out of this one. Lord Palmerston? smoothed over loads of complications with the help of Lord Russell?. The Russians were on the side of the Union, the French were on the side of the Confederates. The British (as we do) chose neither side as it was a bit scary. Chose the Confederates and they lose it'll aggrevate Russia (generally a bad idea), chose the Federals and they lose it'll aggrevate France, not an attractive idea. Choose nobody, everybody hates us but hopefully they'll understand later.<BR /><BR />I will go on later and feel free to challenge my understanding as I do post some nonsense.<BR /><BR />AA (thank you).<BR /><BR />

  Link to this forum: Why did it take the North 4 years to win the American Civil War

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by allanro (U1966688) on Monday, 3rd October 2005

  Actually you seem to know quite a lot about the ACW.
  
  1 is fair enough although I would say the North became quite commtted fairly early on and nearly won the war in 1862 until McClellan messed up at the 7 days convincing himself he was heavily outnumbered. Of course, Lee replacing J E Johnson had a lot to do with McClellan's defeat.
  
  2. Again I don't think Northern soldiers were generally inferior to Southerners
  
  3. Very good point and Thomas of course was a Southerner! It did take the North a couple of years to find their best generals.
  
  4. If GB or anyone else had intervened then the Confederancy probably would have won its independence.

  Link to this forum: Why did it take the North 4 years to win the American Civil War

  Report message8

• Message 9

  , in reply to message 8.

  Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Tuesday, 4th October 2005

  All: As a "Yank" I have spent many years studying the American Civil War. First: strictly it wasn't a Civil War as a Civil War is where two groups are fighting to take over the government. It was a "War of Succession."
  
  Second: Several posters have pretty much summed up why it took so long. It was a war of attrition that had to be driven into the southerner's heads that Washington and not the states were superior. A quick victory for the north would have guaranteed another war.
  
  There are many citizens of the U.S. who still want to think the states are where the real power lies. You can see that in the current Conservative Politics of this country. That is why the Supreme Court nominees are so important.

  Link to this forum: Why did it take the North 4 years to win the American Civil War

  Report message9

• Message 10

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by steveP (U1775134) on Tuesday, 4th October 2005

  <QUOTE' USER='Arnald Almaric' USERID='1756653'><BR />2. The northern states whilst being far superior in terms of manpower and industry lacked miltary leadership and tradition. Many of the immigrants to the US had gone there to escape oppression and miltary service. It's going to take some time and persuasion in the form of cold hard cash and other benefits to persuade/coerce the manpower to enlist. The Southern States had this principle in place through the militia.<BR /><BR />4. Political Considerations. Thankfully the British (sort of) kept out of this one. Lord Palmerston? smoothed over loads of complications with the help of Lord Russell?. The Russians were on the side of the Union, the French were on the side of the Confederates. The British (as we do) chose neither side as it was a bit scary. Chose the Confederates and they lose it'll aggrevate Russia (generally a bad idea), chose the Federals and they lose it'll aggrevate France, not an attractive idea. Choose nobody, everybody hates us but hopefully they'll understand later.<BR /><BR />I will go on later and feel free to challenge my understanding as I do post some nonsense.<BR /><BR />AA (thank you).<BR /><BR /></QUOTE><BR /><BR />Arnald<BR /><BR /> Agree with most of what you say but just a couple of comments.<BR /><BR /> On point 2 I think there was problems in some of the eastern cities especially as the recent immigrants were often less than willing to be conscripted into the Union army. There were some riots amongst the Irish especially. Think part of it was that while there was a draft richer people could buy themselves out of it which meant the burden fell more heavily on poorer people.<BR /><BR /> On point 4 I think other European powers had very little to do with Britain's position. At the time our naval and industrial power was such that we didn't really have anything to fear from either of them. It was more a mater of relations with the two American states. There was some sympathy with the Confederacy at the north’s attempt to impose its will on it and probably also some desire that a divided US would reduce the threat from America. On the other hand there was considerable opposition to the continuation of slavery in the south and the view that the war was fought over this alienated many from supporting the south. Also the north was already such a powerful state and a big trading partner that there was concern about alienating it.<BR /><BR /> Steve<BR />

  Link to this forum: Why did it take the North 4 years to win the American Civil War

  Report message10

• Message 11

  , in reply to message 8.

  Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Tuesday, 4th October 2005

  <QUOTE' USER='allanro' USERID='1966688'>Actually you seem to know quite a lot about the ACW. <BR /><BR />1 is fair enough although I would say the North became quite commtted fairly early on and nearly won the war in 1862 until McClellan messed up at the 7 days convincing himself he was heavily outnumbered. Of course, Lee replacing J E Johnson had a lot to do with McClellan's defeat.<BR /><BR />2. Again I don't think Northern soldiers were generally inferior to Southerners<BR /><BR />3. Very good point and Thomas of course was a Southerner! It did take the North a couple of years to find their best generals.<BR /><BR />4. If GB or anyone else had intervened then the Confederancy probably would have won its independence.</QUOTE><BR /><BR />allanro, thank you.<BR /><BR />In further reply to point 2 the point I was attempting to make was that the average Southern Soldier started the war slightly better organised into a military unit and led slightly better than the average Northern soldier. I'm talking about leadership and organisation from the bottom up. I don't mean to say that the Northern soldier was inferior to the Southern soldier, just that like the Generals they needed a bit more time to learn their trade compared with the Confederates. Certainly certain Northern units e.g. the Iron Brigade to name the famous one appear to have have needed very little time, although I have heard various explanations as to why they stood so long and fought so well in there first engagement against no less a unit than The Stonewall brigade.<BR /><BR />Cheers AA.

  Link to this forum: Why did it take the North 4 years to win the American Civil War

  Report message11

• Message 12

  , in reply to message 11.

  Posted by allanro (U1966688) on Tuesday, 4th October 2005

  This does seem to have been more true in the East. In the West the Union soldiers seem to have been a match for the Confederates from the beginning and if anything the generals were better (always excepting the nasty but brilliant Forrest).
  
  By the time of Gettysburg I think Northern soldiers in the east were as tough as the confederates and the generals were equal. Certainly Gettysburg was not Lee's finest hour

  Link to this forum: Why did it take the North 4 years to win the American Civil War

  Report message12

• Message 13

  , in reply to message 12.

  Posted by hadrian33 (U929374) on Wednesday, 5th October 2005

  There isnt much to add to the reasons already given. I am most impressed with the concept posted that a quick Northern victory would have guaranteed another war. Some points:
  1) The more urban nature of the north east contributed, I feel, to the delay in getting the north's army up to snuff. Contrast the early effectivness of Northern units in the west to those from New York, Mass or Pennsylvania.
  2) While it is true that Irish immigrants played a central role in the New York draft riots, one must remember that some of the best brigades on BOTH sides were Irish, and that they brought pugnacity and military expertise to the respective armies.
  3) The north's defficiancy in the cavalry arm plagued it the first year or two of the war. This partially due again to the urban character of northern troops, partially due once again to the ineffectivness of leadership, and lastly to the difficulties in obtaining sufficient mounts early in the war.
  4) Robust involvement by the UK on the side of the CSA would have doomed the union in no uncertain terms.

  Link to this forum: Why did it take the North 4 years to win the American Civil War

  Report message13

• Message 14

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Drunkenthorpe (U2180249) on Wednesday, 5th October 2005

  My initial thoughts ...
  
  1. The American Civil War was nothing like the War of Independence (against the Brits, with timely French intervention in favour of the Americans), nor the War of 1812 (against the Brits), let alone US-Indian and US-Mexican conflicts. Everything being equal, you tend to get too comfortable with past wars, unless you are paying attention to politico-socio-economic-technological changes on the double.
  
  2. Having sheer economic advangage alone does not guarantee anything. Towards the end, the question becomes: Can you translate your economic power into military power in time?
  
  3. No less important is your choice of politico-military objectives. The US Civil War did not turn in favour of the North, until the North dominated the Mississippi River and started to make inroads into the deep South, in the form of 'Sherman's March to the Sea' (basically a systematic campaign to destroy the South economically).
  
  4. During the first half of the war, the most the South could achieve was to either force tactical victories or operational stalemates. In other words, the fact that the South had to confront the economically stronger North meant that the latter could sustain tactical-operational setbacks.
  
  5. At the international level, the South was hoping for British intervention. The South counted on the North's blockade which would likely to upset the British cotton imports. Although the South was a major source of cotton import to the Brits, the Brits also imported loads of wheat from the North. LOL!!! Wheat was 'mightier' than cotton?!?
  
  6. Abe Lincoln cleverly turned the war issue into a 'fight to emancipate slavery' after the Battle of Gettysburg. He had a better understanding of how to manage mass media: In the beginning of the war, he blurted out something like ... 'If we could keep the Union without war, then we shall do so. If it takes a war to keep the Union, then we shall do so.' It was not until the South overextended itself before he turned the war into an ideological cause. No such ideological 'weapon' was available in the South.
  
  7. In the beginning of the war, there was a US General, Winfred Scott, who proposed 'Anaconda Plan', in which it predicted that the war between the North and the South was going to be long and bloody. Most politicians did not pay attention; instead, Scott was forced into retirement. It took a while before Scott's plan became accepted.

  Link to this forum: Why did it take the North 4 years to win the American Civil War

  Report message14

• Message 15

  , in reply to message 13.

  Posted by allanro (U1966688) on Wednesday, 5th October 2005

  There isnt much to add to the reasons already given. I am most impressed with the concept posted that a quick Northern victory would have guaranteed another war. Some points:
  1) The more urban nature of the north east contributed, I feel, to the delay in getting the north's army up to snuff. Contrast the early effectivness of Northern units in the west to those from New York, Mass or Pennsylvania.
  2) While it is true that Irish immigrants played a central role in the New York draft riots, one must remember that some of the best brigades on BOTH sides were Irish, and that they brought pugnacity and military expertise to the respective armies.
  3) The north's defficiancy in the cavalry arm plagued it the first year or two of the war. This partially due again to the urban character of northern troops, partially due once again to the ineffectivness of leadership, and lastly to the difficulties in obtaining sufficient mounts early in the war.
  4) Robust involvement by the UK on the side of the CSA would have doomed the union in no uncertain terms. Β 
  
  I think 3 is a good point and its just ocurred to me for the first time that I can't remember that the Union armies in the West ever developed effective cavalry to match Forrest and others (with the xception of the Grierson raid). And yet the Union armies in the west were nevertheless much more successful than in the East from the beginning. In the east the Union did develop effective cavalry by 1863 under Buford, Sheridan, Custer and Wilson. Of course the main problem in the East for the Union was Lee.

  Link to this forum: Why did it take the North 4 years to win the American Civil War

  Report message15

Back to top