[InterestedInPolitics]

Man for man, the confederate army outfought the union army. The only reason the union won the war was because they had superior manufactering and the union could replace their losses while the confederacy could not. The union could afford to make mistakes while the confederacy could not. Once Robert Lee made his mistakes at Gettysburg, the war was over. However, man for man, the confederacy outfought the Union army and had the better overall officer leadership. The confederate army also performed much better in combat in comparison to the performance of the Union army generally speaking. Agree or disagree? why? discuss.

[Suska]

it seems fair to say up to a point, as the war went on more and more of both sides were veteran, by the time of Sherman's march the north's forces were quite disciplined and ready to fight. on the other hand Bull Run was a fiasco for both sides, well... not so much for the south except they totally failed to follow up. You know, it was just a matter of time the North had worthwhile officers too.

[Smilin' Dave]

I think the Union were stronger strategically. Not just in terms of resources and infrastructure (railroads were handy), but their commanders tended to win the bigger picture, particularly by the later stages. For example Sherman's campaigns (like in Georgia) excerbated existing Confederate material problems, increasing the disparity, while threatening to split the Confederate territories. By comparison the Confederates went on the strategic offensive when it didn't suit their purposes and only served to solidify Northern opposition.

[Rojik of the Arctic]

By comparison the Confederates went on the strategic offensive when it didn't suit their purposes and only served to solidify Northern opposition.

Can you explain/elaborate that point please.

[InterestedInPolitics]

I am not sure if strategically the Northern Armies were smarter than the confederacy. What costed the Confederacy the war was Gettysburgh. I think Lee was correct in going on the offensive into Union territory to win international support for the confederacy because that would be the only way to guarantee a confederate victory. However, he made a huge mistake in attempting to fight at Gettysburgh when he could have easily just bypassed the Union Army which had the uphill advantage and threatened Washington DC. This would have forced the Union army to move out of the position of advantage they had. The Union Army did not have the officer leadership that could compare with the officer leadership of the Confederate Army. However, the Union Army could replace their heavy losses while the Confederate Army could not. So, the Union Army could afford to take heavy losses and make costly mistakes while all it would take is one costly mistake by the Confederate Army to cost them the entire war. Had Robert E. Lee decided not to fight at Gettysburgh and continued with victories on Union soil, he could have very well got some of the major European powers on the side of the Confederacy, which could have won the Confederacy the war. Smart strategic move by Robert E. Lee in my opinion to take the war to Union soil but a bad move to fight at Gettysburgh where the Union Army had all the advantages. It was a stupid mistake the Lee made to fight at Gettysburgh. Never fight the enemy when they have the high ground. I would also argue that had the Confederacy had the same capacity of Northern manufactering and industry and were able to replace the losses they sufferred in the same way the Union army was able to, I think the confederacy would have won the war hands down because they simply had the better officer leadership.

[MB.]

Lee's Maryland & Pennsylvanian campaigns were huge mistakes but anyway seceding from the union was obviously an even bigger mistake in the first place.

What costed the Confederacy the war was

relying on slavery as a mode of production...

he could have very well got some of the major European powers on the side of the Confederacy

Lost cause fantasy. No European state would ever have supported the confederacy, least of all a powerful state that possessed the military capacity to actually intervene.

because [the CSA] simply had the better officer leadership.

more nonsense. Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Halleck, Mede, McClellan > Lee, Beauregard, Bragg, Stuart, etc

[Thunderhawk]

No European state would ever have supported the confederacy, least of all a powerful state that possessed the military capacity to actually intervene.

Great Britain did, somewhat, support the CSA. But no military intervention to the best of my knowledge.

[MB.]

Great Britain did, somewhat, support the CSA

If by 'support' you mean 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' sort of deal, you've got it right. The American civil war was very much business as usual for the Palmerston whig regime.

[Smilin' Dave]

Can you explain/elaborate that point please.

Rough points
- To win, the Confederates didn't actually have to invade the North. They just had to survive relatively intact for a long time.
- The Confederates, being outnumbered and outgunned, needed every edge they could find.
- A defence, preferably of fixed positions, is just such an edge. Attrition, concentration of forces, that sort of thing.
- Invasions of the Northern states turned a war of states rights/slavery into one of Southern agression, which was important as the Civil War was never greatly popular in the Northern states.

What costed the Confederacy the war was Gettysburgh.

If you thought the Civil War was fought in only one theatre, that might appear true. The reality is that the Confederates were losing on the other fronts by 1863, and couldn't get a decisive blow in the 'main' theatre.

I think Lee was correct in going on the offensive into Union territory to win international support

Nothing says “legitimate government” like attacking a status quo power for no material strategic reason.

for the confederacy because that would be the only way to guarantee a confederate victory.

The Confederates were winning victories at ‘home’ and on Union soil. It didn’t have a radical effect on international support.

However, he made a huge mistake in attempting to fight at Gettysburgh when he could have easily just bypassed the Union Army which had the uphill advantage and threatened Washington DC.

Strategy with the benefit of hindsight. Lee didn’t know the size or exact position of the Union army until he was over-committed. Thus he couldn’t afford to leave such a force in his rear, where he might notionally be cut off and annihilated. Further IIRC Lee was in the Gettysburg area foraging for supplies, rather than looking for a fight.

Had Robert E. Lee decided not to fight at Gettysburgh and continued with victories on Union soil, he could have very well got some of the major European powers on the side of the Confederacy, which could have won the Confederacy the war.

Or he could have bumped into the fortifications built to defend Washington by 1863. The Union could better afford a siege than the Confederate forces.

Never fight the enemy when they have the high ground.

Lee’s army very nearly outflanked that high ground, which would have negated the Union advantage. That particular gamble failed on the second last day of the battle IIRC.

I would also argue that had the Confederacy had the same capacity of Northern manufactering and industry and were able to replace the losses they sufferred in the same way the Union army was able to, I think the confederacy would have won the war hands down because they simply had the better officer leadership.

Had the Southern states had the things that made the possible, the differences between North and South would have been less exaggerated and the whole war may never have broken out. Think about it, a lot of the war, both its start and course, boiled down to industrialisation. Slave states never properly industrialise.

[MB.]

The Confederates were winning victories at ‘home’ and on Union soil.

Maybe it's just the books I'm reading, but it seems to me that the Union basically militarily kicked the shit out of the CSA for 3 years while the politicians vacillated about what to do with the question of slavery. I strongly gather the impression that at no point did the Union leadership really believe that it could lose the war (for example the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War was perpetually obsessed that the Union wasn't winning the war as fast as it could ).

The 'victories' you mention are either chimerical or, more properaly, draws (reversals?)

[Smilin' Dave]

First and Second Bull Run were fairly significant. McClelland's campaign against Richmond (the title of which escapes me) was not exactly a great Union success either despite having all the advantages. It was sabotaged more by McClelland's hesitancy to committ to a full battle than by Union politiking too. Interestingly one of the barriers to McClelland's march on Richmond was Confederate fortifications, including those ordered by Lee around the city itself. Defensive strategy and strategic victory, albeit not decisive.

[MB.]

First Mananas / Bull Run was a tie, I think we can agree to that right off the bat. Both armies came to the field, both suffered.

Second Mananas, certainly the case of a more clear Confederate success- but only in the near term, and only while the Army of the Potomac was being moved from the Peninsula. Looking to Sharpsburg for the conclusion of the campaign, I think again we're looking at a tie. Both sides are mauled, neither comes out on top.

McClelland's [sic] campaign against Richmond (the title of which escapes me)

The Peninsular campaign is the usual one I see.

was not exactly a great Union success either despite having all the advantages

Certainly not- but was it a great Confederate victory? Two points here. 1) Would the CSA have collapsed had McClellan captured Richmond? Doubtful. Therefore any hypothetical success during the Siege of Richmond may have led only to the conclusion of a successful campaign, but not necessarily a decisive victory. 2) Was Lee's Seven Day Battle a great confederate victory?-- as you noted, it certainly was not decisive. Again, arguable. According to Wiki the CSA suffered 20,000 causalities over the course of the seven days, whereas the Union suffered 15,000. The Army of the Potomac was not destroyed (despite Lee's intention to do so!) and was able to transfer back to DC from where the Second Mananas campaign and the Maryland invasion was successfully checked.

It was sabotaged more by McClelland's hesitancy to committ to a full battle than by Union politiking too

I'm with you on this one. McClellan's great flaw was his belief in his own infallibility.

Interestingly one of the barriers to McClelland's march on Richmond was Confederate fortifications, including those ordered by Lee around the city itself. Defensive strategy and strategic victory, albeit not decisive.

Just a quick note re: fortifications during the Richmond siege. McClellan's plan for the campaign had all along been to siege Richmond, regardless of Confederate efforts to prevent him from doing so. And, had not Lee counterattacked in the Seven Days, I don't think anything could have prevented the Army of the Potomac from bombing Richmond into dust. Lee's strategy was very much offensive rather than defensive as you suggest.

I would call the Seven Days an operational success from Lee's perspective, in that the Army of the Potomac didn't captured Richmond, but a strategic failure, in that the Army of the Potomac was not destroyed or even significantly reduced.

[Smilin' Dave]

All right, point taken.

@ V
Where are the tactical victories for the South during:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_through_Georgia
?

[MB.]

Lost Cause apologists typically argue that Sherman's Georgia campaign represented the height of barbarity and uncivilized wartime decorum and was indeed not war at all but murder!

[Thunderhawk]

If by 'support' you mean 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' sort of deal, you've got it right. The American civil war was very much business as usual for the Palmerston whig regime.

Didnt the USA demand reperations from GB after the war due to British support of the CSA?

[MB.]

I dunno omfg the test is in a week!

[Thunderhawk]

huh?

[Oxymoron]

The only reason the union won the war was because they had superior manufactering and the union could replace their losses while the confederacy could not.

So the only reason the North won was because it had a stronger industry , had more manpower, controlled the seas, and had more money . Who would have thought.

[InterestedInPolitics]

Pretty much Oxy. But I think the Confederacy had the better officer leadership and outfought the Union Army. Robert E. Lee is regarded as the best general that came out of the Civil War by military historians and rightfully so. A somewhat similar analogy would be the German Army during WWII. The German Army during WWII in my opinion outfought man for man, all armies they fought against, with some exceptions in some battles like in Bastagne for instance. The German Army had brilliant officers and they inflicted more casualties than they took, they just had a civilian leadership that meddled too much into the affairs of the military and did not have the industrial capacity or economies of the allies. The German Army in some ways is kinda like the Confederate Army; though they lost the war, they had the better officer leadership and outfought their opponents man for man. I would say, that the German Army overall had the better army over all allied armies because they had excellent technology and equipment for it's time. I am not sure the same could be said for the Confederate Army though.

[Smilin' Dave]

V, you avoided my question in favour of quoting Oxy.

Robert E. Lee is regarded as the best general that came out of the Civil War by military historians and rightfully so.

Actually a lot of military and Civil War historians tip U.S Grant as the better general, some even suggest Lee was a good 'captain' only. In effect, Grant was better at strategy, which is what generalship is all about. Lee was pretty good on the battlefield, but not so great on the wider scale.

they just had a civilian leadership that meddled too much into the affairs of the military

Again, there is another point of view, that suggests that suviving German generals tended to blame the Nazis for decisions, even if those same opinions were being expressed by the general staff.

did not have the industrial capacity or economies of the allies

Unlike the Confederates, Nazi Germany had plenty of time to ramp up their war economy before the conflict. That they failed anyway is in part an argument for good strategy on the part of the Allies.

I would say, that the German Army overall had the better army over all allied armies because they had excellent technology and equipment for it's time.

This is a dubious claim, and worse it contradicts your points about the Germans succeeding thanks to good officers.

Now answer my question about the March through Georgia.