Why the Confederacy Lost

[Trugrit]

You might find this lecture interesting.
Program is about 2 hours long.

The second lecture is about southern war strategy.
http://series.c-span.org/History/Events ... 7436630-1/

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: parusski

"I think that the North fought that war with one hand behind its back. At the same time the war was going on, the Homestead act was being passed, all these marvelous inventions were going on... If there had been more Southern victories, and a lot more, the North simply would have brought that other hand out from behind its back. I don't think the South ever had a chance to win that War."

Even though this is Shelby Foote, I would take issue with it. It wouldn't just be an issue of producing more force, it would also involve stomaching more losses - maybe a lot more.

Suppose the South got British intervention, including the RN. No more blockade means better economics within the South, means fewer desertions, means stronger Southern armies - and that means a lot more losses have to be suffered to get to Appomattox.

[Twotribes]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: parusski

"I think that the North fought that war with one hand behind its back. At the same time the war was going on, the Homestead act was being passed, all these marvelous inventions were going on... If there had been more Southern victories, and a lot more, the North simply would have brought that other hand out from behind its back. I don't think the South ever had a chance to win that War."

Even though this is Shelby Foote, I would take issue with it. It wouldn't just be an issue of producing more force, it would also involve stomaching more losses - maybe a lot more.

Suppose the South got British intervention, including the RN. No more blockade means better economics within the South, means fewer desertions, means stronger Southern armies - and that means a lot more losses have to be suffered to get to Appomattox.

Remind me how many sea going Ironclads the British had?

[Twotribes]

The Idea that the States of Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia would have turned even a part of their State over to a foreign power is ludicrous, the ENTIRE reason they left the Union was slavery and supposedly States rights. Last I checked Britain, France, Spain and Mexico had all outlawed slavery and would have simply replaced the US control for their own.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Remind me how many sea going Ironclads the British had?

Warrior 1861
Black Prince 1861
Defence 1861
Resistance 1861
Royal Oak 1863
Hector 1864
Valiant 1864
Royal Sovereign 1864
Prince Consort 1864
Caledonia 1864
Ocean 1864
Research 1864
Enterprise 1864
Achilles 1864
Scorpion 1865
Wivern 1865

And the blockade was manned by wooden warships. To conduct that blockade, the North needed naval supremacy - they wouldn't even have had parity.

[AbwehrX]

The Idea that the States of Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia would have turned even a part of their State over to a foreign power is ludicrous, Last I checked Britain, France, Spain and Mexico had all outlawed slavery and would have simply replaced the US control for their own.

I agree that the odds were against the idea but considering they were only militarily capable of holding maybe a third of their original territory then the very threat of handing over 2/3's of their states might have made the Yankees think twice about prosecuting the war. Their only real chance of an independent South was to reduce their front lines to a Fabian defense and reach out for powerful allies. They failed miserably to do so and they failed militarily so the diplomatic option was the only way to achieve a realistic goal.

the ENTIRE reason they left the Union was slavery and supposedly States rights

Not really. Most Southerners did not own slaves so most were not fighting for that. They just simply opposed what they considered a dictatorship of Yankees. The north however wasnt going to allow the Union to be divided regardless of the issues at hand because it disrupted their Manifest Destiny agenda.

[Toby42]

I don't think that Britain would recognize the Confederacy because of slavery. It was outlawed in Britain, I think?

[aaatoysandmore]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Remind me how many sea going Ironclads the British had?

Warrior 1861
Black Prince 1861
Defence 1861
Resistance 1861
Royal Oak 1863
Hector 1864
Valiant 1864
Royal Sovereign 1864
Prince Consort 1864
Caledonia 1864
Ocean 1864
Research 1864
Enterprise 1864
Achilles 1864
Scorpion 1865
Wivern 1865

And the blockade was manned by wooden warships. To conduct that blockade, the North needed naval supremacy - they wouldn't even have had parity.

Lol Twotribes.....rebuttal??? [:'(]

[danlongman]

ORIGINAL: Treale

I don't think that Britain would recognize the Confederacy because of slavery. It was outlawed in Britain, I think?

Slavery outlawed in the UK in 1833, in France 1848. The USA was rather behind the times on this one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Africa_Squadron

[AbwehrX]

I don't think that Britain would recognize the Confederacy because of slavery. It was outlawed in Britain, I think?

They might not have had to recognize them. The Confederacy was simply way over-extended and by 1863 were under serious pressure to sustain the war. Only a diplomatic coup couldve prevented total collapse and offering land to US rivals like France, Spain and England wouldve narrowed the front dramatically. What else could they have done?

[ckammp]

There was never any serious chance of European recognition of the Confederacy. The one slim chance was the Trent affair in late 1861, but the combination of Prince Albert's intervention and the result of the battle of Antietam ended that hope.

Militarily, the claim that the British navy would easily defeat the United States navy is false. By 1863, the US had a dozen ironclads, by war's end it had 50, three times as many as Britain.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ckammp

Militarily, the claim that the British navy would easily defeat the United States navy is false. By 1863, the US had a dozen ironclads, by war's end it had 50, three times as many as Britain.

My source, "The Complete Encyclopedia of Battleships" only lists seven ocean-going ironclads of the caliber of the Warrior for the USA during the period of the Civil War:

New Ironsides 1862
Roanoke 1863
Monadnock 1864
Agamenticus 1864
Miantonomah 1864
Tonawanda 1864
Dictator 1864

There was an Ironclad arms-race going on, and Britain was not about to lose it.

The others were coastal or riverine vessels, not suitable for the high seas (as the fate of the Monitor demonstrated).

[parusski]

ORIGINAL: Trugrit

You might find this lecture interesting.
Program is about 2 hours long.

The second lecture is about southern war strategy.
http://series.c-span.org/History/Events ... 7436630-1/

Thanks for the link. I had this at one time but never watched it and of course lost the link.

[parusski]

ORIGINAL: AbwehrX

The Idea that the States of Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia would have turned even a part of their State over to a foreign power is ludicrous, Last I checked Britain, France, Spain and Mexico had all outlawed slavery and would have simply replaced the US control for their own.

I agree that the odds were against the idea but considering they were only militarily capable of holding maybe a third of their original territory then the very threat of handing over 2/3's of their states might have made the Yankees think twice about prosecuting the war. Their only real chance of an independent South was to reduce their front lines to a Fabian defense and reach out for powerful allies. They failed miserably to do so and they failed militarily so the diplomatic option was the only way to achieve a realistic goal.

the ENTIRE reason they left the Union was slavery and supposedly States rights

Not really. Most Southerners did not own slaves so most were not fighting for that. They just simply opposed what they considered a dictatorship of Yankees. The north however wasnt going to allow the Union to be divided regardless of the issues at hand because it disrupted their Manifest Destiny agenda.

Your second point is spot on. Manifest destiny was very important to Lincoln(The Homestead Act) and do not forget he was willing to leave slavery alone if that would keep the nation together. The ACW was never black and white-NO pun intended.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: AbwehrX

the ENTIRE reason they left the Union was slavery and supposedly States rights

That was the reason. Read the Ordinance of Secession. State rights had little to do with. Considering they didn't want the free states to ignore the Fugitive Slave Law.

[Twotribes]

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Remind me how many sea going Ironclads the British had?

Warrior 1861
Black Prince 1861
Defence 1861
Resistance 1861
Royal Oak 1863
Hector 1864
Valiant 1864
Royal Sovereign 1864
Prince Consort 1864
Caledonia 1864
Ocean 1864
Research 1864
Enterprise 1864
Achilles 1864
Scorpion 1865
Wivern 1865

And the blockade was manned by wooden warships. To conduct that blockade, the North needed naval supremacy - they wouldn't even have had parity.

Lol Twotribes.....rebuttal??? [:'(]

So they had 4 ironclads in 61, how many did the North have? And of those Ironclads were they OCEAN vessels or not. By 63 when they got a couple more the North had how many? Further did they have coaling stations to get those ironclads to the US? The US would have eaten up the British Navy as they had the local cities and production facilities.

But it is moot since there is no way the South was going to trade States for foreign support and the British were not going to recognize a Slave owning Country as it was Illegal in Britain.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: ckammp

There was never any serious chance of European recognition of the Confederacy. The one slim chance was the Trent affair in late 1861, but the combination of Prince Albert's intervention and the result of the battle of Antietam ended that hope.

Militarily, the claim that the British navy would easily defeat the United States navy is false. By 1863, the US had a dozen ironclads, by war's end it had 50, three times as many as Britain.

No it isn't. Most of those ironclads were coastal. (Sure, one crossed the Atlantic post war. But it would of been useless in a fight in any but calm seas.)

And the RN didn't need to fight, A blockade would work. The Union used wooden ships for its blockade. No Confederate ironclad ever broke it.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




Warrior 1861
Black Prince 1861
Defence 1861
Resistance 1861
Royal Oak 1863
Hector 1864
Valiant 1864
Royal Sovereign 1864
Prince Consort 1864
Caledonia 1864
Ocean 1864
Research 1864
Enterprise 1864
Achilles 1864
Scorpion 1865
Wivern 1865

And the blockade was manned by wooden warships. To conduct that blockade, the North needed naval supremacy - they wouldn't even have had parity.

Lol Twotribes.....rebuttal??? [:'(]

So they had 4 ironclads in 61, how many did the North have? And of those Ironclads were they OCEAN vessels or not. By 63 when they got a couple more the North had how many? Further did they have coaling stations to get those ironclads to the US? The US would have eaten up the British Navy as they had the local cities and production facilities.

But it is moot since there is no way the South was going to trade States for foreign support and the British were not going to recognize a Slave owning Country as it was Illegal in Britain.

The RN ironclads were ocean going. And they used sails on a long voyage. Coaling stations? Not that difficult to establish them in the Caribbean or Canada. Probably already had them there. And as the Confederate casemate ironclads couldn't break the Union blockade, which used wooden steamers, how would equally unsuitable low freeboard monitors do it?

Then, given how a few Confederate raiders wreaked havoc on Union shipping, what would a far, far larger Royal Navy do?

[Capt. Harlock]

The USA was rather behind the times on this one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Africa_Squadron

Yes and no. The USA banned the African slave trade, though not slavery itself, in 1809. And note the American assistance to the West Africa Squadron.

[ckammp]

In order to impose a blockade of the United States, Britain would have had to defeat the United States navy. How would Britain's out-numbered ocean-going ironclads have defeated the American coastal ironclads?
The United States could also send it's coastal ironclads up to Canada, thus denying any staging area to the British fleet.
And the United States could always make more ocean-going ironclads if needed.