Why did the confederates lose the war?

Why did the confederates lose the war?

Picket dropped his spaghetti @ Ghettysburg tbqh

Because from day one, they planned to fight an asymmetric war, based in large part on the American experience during the Revolution. They would balance out the material advantages in things like population and wealth that the north had by greater commitment: They didn't need to win, just not lose.

However, they overlooked that while to Britain, America was a faraway overseas possession, and not even their most important (India), to Washington, the South was an integral part of the country, to be regained at almost any price, and they wouldn't stop coming until they won or were broken themselves.

They didn't have the resources for a direct material win, and misunderstood the political context that might have enabled them to gain a more coercive win.

They went on the offensive.

They thought they were in a position to be offensive. The only plausible way they could have won would've been through guerrilla warfare and the north just giving up because of too high costs.

>to Washington

Because they fought a conventional war instead of a guerrilla campaign.

Instead of fielding an army, they should have simply sent agents into the north to murder the families and friends of politicians long enough for them to finally say "fuck it, you can have the south, just quit killing us....".

That's the way you win civil wars.

Washington referring to the capital, and therefore to the political establishment, not George Washington the person. I thought that was obvious.


It would have been nearly impossible for the south to wage a guerilla war: Remember, their economy in large part depends on the enslaved population. If you split up your army, head to the hills, the Union marches in and frees all the Negroes. Then you're in real trouble.

>
Instead of fielding an army, they should have simply sent agents into the north to murder the families and friends of politicians long enough for them to finally say "fuck it, you can have the south, just quit killing us....".

That isn't a guerilla campaign and would have been totally impractical, what with the bulk of those politicians and their families being in the capital, which was very heavily defended.

Yeah i agree with you. I'm just giving the only plausible way they could have won. Even then, i'm not so sure that the common white southerners would have been so keen on fighting a gruesome guerrilla warfare for slavery because they didn't really benefit from it.

The majority were fighting out of pure patriotism, not slavery. Slavery was the motivation of the government and the aristocracy, not the soldiers.

I'm not American, so it isn't, my bad

Oh, I'm sorry for getting on your case then. I should have written more clearly.

You seem to believe that guerrilla fighting is about achieving decisive victories in battle. It's not.

The mere fact that crops get burned, railroad track gets destroyed, politician "X", Judge "Y", and cop "Z" got murdered, over time wears down political resolve.

A guerrilla achieves victory by simply existing, and if they wait long enough, the politicians will always cave.

This would result in many many many Sherman like marches destroying the south were they really willing to sacrafuce everything else in the name of independence.

The South did have an insurgency during Reconstruction, in the form of the original Ku Klux Klan. What did they manage to accomplish?

>You seem to believe that guerrilla fighting is about achieving decisive victories in battle. It's not.

No, guerilla fighting is the exact opposite of that. But the weakness of guerilla fighting is that it can't hold or defend territory. It also has extremely limited offensive capability. A guerilla force cannot prevent armies from marching through your territory, occupying your cities, and freeing your slaves. It's not a strategy the south can realistically pursue.

Furthermore, historically, it's enormously difficult for guerillas to project force where they don't have local support, local advantages in knowledge, a population they can hide in, etc. In the context of the ACW, it means that southern Guerillas are only likely to be effective in the south itself. You're not going to be killing big time politicians, because they'll be up in the north where you can't get at them. You're going to have a hell of a tough time getting large enough groups of people across the border to northern farms (their primary farm belt is in Ohio, hundreds of miles away from your bases of support), or prevent them from importing food overseas.

And they have to win the waiting game, endure the privations and being shot at and hunted down longer than their adversary. A country trying to reclaim a core province is not going to give up easily, if at all. But especially the way the antebellum south is configured, they don't have a lot of staying power when occupied, because all three million of those Negroes are going to be running away the first chance they get.

They have to hold on to their territory, and that puts the pause in a guerilla campaign.

This is what i meant with For a successful guerrilla campaign you need to have 100% determined and loyal population. Everyone needs to be hostile against the invading army, especially when there are no major geographical barriers between the north and south

Sherman attacking innocent civilians in the south for the acts of a few "out of control" guerrillas would lead to the loss of public support in the north, which would impact both, elections, and the currently serving politicians, all in favor of the south.

You're new to this, aren't you...

The Klan wasn't an insurgency.

There weren't any borders that couldn't be crossed, and the free travel of ministers, performers, and people seeking work in northern territories was never restricted.

It's not like there wasn't a support base available in the north due to the fact that many people had family in both, north and south.

And so you're sending dozens if not hundreds of small bands of armed men into territory they don't particularly know well to commit acts of sabotage and terror.

What stops them from being hunted down by the police and regular army? Why would relatives and friends in the north be so supportive of these actions that are destroying their homes, their fields, their livestock, when they're not the ones with the political agenda at stake? And how does this stop the emancipation, which would be an enormous blow against the confederacy, since once those slaves go, it's real hard to get them back.

The war wouldnt make it to the elections they would capitulate first. Also the southern people would lose faith the government that cannot defend them at all. Also, it is a guerrilla camping in which he specifically stated that were going to attempt assassinating public figures and trying to destroy northern industry which would lose the south a lot of support from the north. You make some good points but you are an arrogant prick.

Logistics wins wars. It doesn't matter if your generals are more experienced tacticians and your grunts are better marksman if your army shows up a week late, hungry and barefoot.

They played aggressive when all they had to was be defensive. Their numbers were dwindling and they couldn't out produce the north. Any possible support from European countries was gone once it started to be a war about slavery.

You don't think dozens, or hundreds, of small armed bands fled north to escape the war? They certainly did, and you seem to forget that the north had plenty of cities to hide in and conduct operations out of for any potential group.

Assassination of government figures works in the favor of the guerrilla in that they can publicly deny and denounce such acts while secretly celebrating them.

Neither one of you have any clue about how any successful guerrilla campaigns have been conducted, hence, there's no need for further ramblings.

>Logistics wins wars

Will wins wars.

It doesn't matter how much of a logistical, technological, or numerical advantage you have if you don't have the will to use them.

Did one side have significantly more willpower than the other?

If not that is like pointing out that people need to breathe air to fight a war.

>You don't think dozens, or hundreds, of small armed bands fled north to escape the war? They certainly did, and you seem to forget that the north had plenty of cities to hide in and conduct operations out of for any potential group.

And how much damage did they do? Enough to stop a north hellbent on recovering the south? Pfah.

No European intervention from Britain and France; once the war was about slavery; their attractiveness as a source of cotton wasn't enough to justify the shit they would've gotten domestically from supporting a slave state.

They counted on three things happening, of which only one of those did happen. Those were the very poor relationship in between a couple of the non slave states ( namely NY)and the Federal government to cause a major issues in the running of the Federal government the the will to fight, intervention by France and or GB in their favor, and early quality and leadership issues in the Union army. Only the last one came true. The second was actively prevented by the Russian Empire muching it know that they will enter the war on the side of union if a foreign actor intervened. They did that in exchange for naval technology.

This has to be one of the nicest exchanges i've seen on Veeky Forums. Then again my experience has been r9k mostly.

They started it. :^)

They kicked out reconstruction and replaced republican officials with ex-confederates.