5 ms·

A bit of an aside, but it seems like the South would've had a lot fewer able-bodied, young men to fight the war especially since they weren't inclined to arm bl

A bit of an aside, but it seems like the South would've had a lot fewer able-bodied, young men to fight the war especially since they weren't inclined to arm black soldiers. Given that the south was primarily agrarian with fewer urban areas to draw from - the population was more sparse. How did the confederacy think they could win given that difference?

x86_64Ubuntu 3y ago
I don't know if they truly thought they could win as much as they had to fight. With the Westward expansion of the U.S., more and more states would be admitted to the union that would never be as slave dependent as the South. In that scenario, the political power of the slavers gets diluted and chattel slavery ends with the stroke of a pen. They simply couldn't stick around for that situation to take place.
- cryptonector 3y ago
  Also, the economic and industrial might of the North, and the lack of industrialization in the South (slavery didn't help) meant that the disparities between military and economic might between the North and South were bound to get larger, much larger, so many in the South must have felt that 1861 was the last time they might be able to secede successfully.
kayodelycaon 3y ago
Most importantly, they thought they needed to fight. Winning was somewhat secondary, but the following factors where involved in that calculation: 1. The Confederates planned to fight on the defensive. They weren't invading the Union. 2. They were more prepared for military service and had better leadership. Which wasn't wrong at the start. 3. They would win simply because of the strength of their belief. If they never surrendered, they would win because the Union didn't the same resolve. 4. Cotton exports would cause European countries to side with them against the Union. 5. They didn't really expect the Union to wage total war.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
marcusverus 3y ago
At first glance one might suspect that South's disinclination to arm black soldiers would harm their ability to field a large proportion of their population, but that wasn't the case. The ready availability of slave labor enabled free men, who would have otherwise been required at home to work the fields or bring in the crops, to go off and fight instead. IIRC, around 80% of able-bodied free men in the South fought in the war. > How did the confederacy think they could win given that difference? When your country gets invaded, you don't grab your abacas, you grab your gun.
- shkkmo 3y ago
  > When your country gets invaded, you don't grab your abacas, you grab your gun. The confederacy was not being invaded when they chose to start the war.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Clubber 3y ago
    On the night of December 26, Major Anderson's men were ordered to turn their overcoats to hide the military buttons and to take off their caps, so as to be taken for the civilian laborers who passed daily between Forts Sumter and Moultrie. The ruse was successful, a turncoat matter one might say. The act of soldiers posing as civilians in war historically has been viewed as an act of perfidy. With the ruse, Union troops took Fort Sumter without a shot fired. They had spiked the guns at Fort Moultrie and set fire to their carriages. Some at the time and later considered this clandestine move to Fort Sumter an act of war, the first in the coming conflict. US Secretary of War at the time, John B. Floyd, could not believe Major Anderson had made such a move, because there was no order for such an act. He asked the major to explain his action. ... Finally, Lincoln acted. On March 29, he had sent a note to his secretary of war: “I desire than an expedition, to move by sea, be got ready to sail as early as the 6th of April next.” Despite many rumors of evacuation, Fort Sumter apparently was to be reinforced, a move expressly forbidden by Southern authorities after months of patient and unsatisfying negotiations regarding the evacuation of the fort. US Naval Captain Gustavus Fox, commanding the reinforcement expedition, was instructed to enter Charleston Harbor and send a boatload of provisions to Fort Sumter and to do no more, unless he was stopped or fired upon. In either of those cases, he was to try to force a passage, with the help of US Navy ships beyond the harbor, and supply the fort not only with provisions but also with troops. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4112687/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4112687/
philwelch 3y ago
The will to fight is also a finite resource in war. There was also no material way that North Vietnam or the Taliban could prevail in a straight up fight; the strategy in all these cases was to inflict enough death and destruction that the United States would give up and sue for peace.
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  Isn't that fairly contemporary theory though? Is there any historical record of confederate leadership using that language or applying those concepts? I'm sure someone over there had read clausewitz but I've never heard of this stuff being applied by any american military before like maaaybe ww1, a little bit.
  - philwelch 3y ago
    I am using more contemporary theoretical terminology, but I think the basic idea of “make the Yankees bleed until they leave us alone” was within the grasp of the rebels. A lot of warfighting theory is an attempt to formalize strategic thinking that has always been with us, sort of like how stories have followed the Hero’s Journey pattern for centuries before Campbell formalized it.
ranger207 3y ago
* They planned to fight a defensive war * They had more military experience and a stronger military tradition * They were more motivated * There were a not-insignificant number of Northerners who weren't particularly in favor of fighting a war against slavery (which, despite the "states' rights" commentators, was the real cause of the war) * They expected recognition from the British government due to their supposed dependence of southern cotton I just finished the book _Battle Cry of Freedom_ a couple of weeks ago. It's a fantastic and very readable single-volume history of the war and the ~20 years leading up to it, and I think every American should read it for a clear understanding of why exactly the US Civil War happened
- xenadu02 3y ago
  AFAIK after pro-union candidates swept elections the Confederacy invaded the officially neutral state of Kentucky. They even admitted Kentucky under a shadow government.
cryptonector 3y ago
Sam Houston didn't think it was possible and counseled the Texas legislature to not secede. For his troubles he was removed as governor.
cykros 3y ago
They had help from (and were egged on by) Britain and they didn't count on the help the Union was going to get from Russia. Also, war on home turf gives a "home field advantage." Also, in the end, the war lasted over 4 years -- they were hardly a pushover.

x86_64Ubuntu 3y ago

I don't know if they truly thought they could win as much as they had to fight. With the Westward expansion of the U.S., more and more states would be admitted to the union that would never be as slave dependent as the South. In that scenario, the political power of the slavers gets diluted and chattel slavery ends with the stroke of a pen. They simply couldn't stick around for that situation to take place.

cryptonector 3y ago
Also, the economic and industrial might of the North, and the lack of industrialization in the South (slavery didn't help) meant that the disparities between military and economic might between the North and South were bound to get larger, much larger, so many in the South must have felt that 1861 was the last time they might be able to secede successfully.

kayodelycaon 3y ago

Most importantly, they thought they needed to fight. Winning was somewhat secondary, but the following factors where involved in that calculation: 1. The Confederates planned to fight on the defensive. They weren't invading the Union. 2. They were more prepared for military service and had better leadership. Which wasn't wrong at the start. 3. They would win simply because of the strength of their belief. If they never surrendered, they would win because the Union didn't the same resolve. 4. Cotton exports would cause European countries to side with them against the Union. 5. They didn't really expect the Union to wage total war.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

marcusverus 3y ago

At first glance one might suspect that South's disinclination to arm black soldiers would harm their ability to field a large proportion of their population, but that wasn't the case. The ready availability of slave labor enabled free men, who would have otherwise been required at home to work the fields or bring in the crops, to go off and fight instead. IIRC, around 80% of able-bodied free men in the South fought in the war. > How did the confederacy think they could win given that difference? When your country gets invaded, you don't grab your abacas, you grab your gun.

shkkmo 3y ago
> When your country gets invaded, you don't grab your abacas, you grab your gun. The confederacy was not being invaded when they chose to start the war.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Clubber 3y ago
  On the night of December 26, Major Anderson's men were ordered to turn their overcoats to hide the military buttons and to take off their caps, so as to be taken for the civilian laborers who passed daily between Forts Sumter and Moultrie. The ruse was successful, a turncoat matter one might say. The act of soldiers posing as civilians in war historically has been viewed as an act of perfidy. With the ruse, Union troops took Fort Sumter without a shot fired. They had spiked the guns at Fort Moultrie and set fire to their carriages. Some at the time and later considered this clandestine move to Fort Sumter an act of war, the first in the coming conflict. US Secretary of War at the time, John B. Floyd, could not believe Major Anderson had made such a move, because there was no order for such an act. He asked the major to explain his action. ... Finally, Lincoln acted. On March 29, he had sent a note to his secretary of war: “I desire than an expedition, to move by sea, be got ready to sail as early as the 6th of April next.” Despite many rumors of evacuation, Fort Sumter apparently was to be reinforced, a move expressly forbidden by Southern authorities after months of patient and unsatisfying negotiations regarding the evacuation of the fort. US Naval Captain Gustavus Fox, commanding the reinforcement expedition, was instructed to enter Charleston Harbor and send a boatload of provisions to Fort Sumter and to do no more, unless he was stopped or fired upon. In either of those cases, he was to try to force a passage, with the help of US Navy ships beyond the harbor, and supply the fort not only with provisions but also with troops. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4112687/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4112687/

philwelch 3y ago

The will to fight is also a finite resource in war. There was also no material way that North Vietnam or the Taliban could prevail in a straight up fight; the strategy in all these cases was to inflict enough death and destruction that the United States would give up and sue for peace.

giraffe_lady 3y ago
Isn't that fairly contemporary theory though? Is there any historical record of confederate leadership using that language or applying those concepts? I'm sure someone over there had read clausewitz but I've never heard of this stuff being applied by any american military before like maaaybe ww1, a little bit.
- philwelch 3y ago
  I am using more contemporary theoretical terminology, but I think the basic idea of “make the Yankees bleed until they leave us alone” was within the grasp of the rebels. A lot of warfighting theory is an attempt to formalize strategic thinking that has always been with us, sort of like how stories have followed the Hero’s Journey pattern for centuries before Campbell formalized it.

ranger207 3y ago

* They planned to fight a defensive war * They had more military experience and a stronger military tradition * They were more motivated * There were a not-insignificant number of Northerners who weren't particularly in favor of fighting a war against slavery (which, despite the "states' rights" commentators, was the real cause of the war) * They expected recognition from the British government due to their supposed dependence of southern cotton I just finished the book _Battle Cry of Freedom_ a couple of weeks ago. It's a fantastic and very readable single-volume history of the war and the ~20 years leading up to it, and I think every American should read it for a clear understanding of why exactly the US Civil War happened

xenadu02 3y ago
AFAIK after pro-union candidates swept elections the Confederacy invaded the officially neutral state of Kentucky. They even admitted Kentucky under a shadow government.

cryptonector 3y ago

Sam Houston didn't think it was possible and counseled the Texas legislature to not secede. For his troubles he was removed as governor.

cykros 3y ago

They had help from (and were egged on by) Britain and they didn't count on the help the Union was going to get from Russia. Also, war on home turf gives a "home field advantage." Also, in the end, the war lasted over 4 years -- they were hardly a pushover.