When the South began the bombardment of Ft. Sumter in 1861, amid hubris and vainglorious dreams of creating a separate nation, it forced the hand of the North. In 1865, President Lincoln stated it was the actions of the South that forced a Northern response. The reality of this response and what it could mean in a long-term conflict was drowned out by Southern zeal to defend their way of life, a society based on a slave economy.
Some men, like Jefferson Davis, may have seen the inevitable conclusion. When he returned to his Mississippi plantation after leaving Washington, he commented to his wife that everything around them would be lost. The North could never permit the South to secede permanently, and many in the South knew this.
Lack of Allies and a Finite Source of Manpower
Through the bloody conflict, the Confederacy strove to gain recognition from Britain and France, hoping for military assistance. There is evidence that had the Confederacy prevailed at Antietam or Gettysburg, Britain might have directly assisted the South.
Manpower in the South was limited whereas Northern armies could be swiftly replenished. This fact alone allowed U.S. Grant the opportunity to fight a war of attrition. Grant could afford to lose more soldiers than his Southern counterparts and still count on replacements. Toward the end of the war, this included 190,000 black combat troops, something the South viewed as anathema.
Military Strategy and Battlefield Leadership
Ideologies aside, the conflict between the North and the South was essentially a war, and wars are fought on the battlefield. What began as a limited and cautionary response by the Union rapidly became total war. By July 1863, both Gettysburg and Vicksburg represented turning points that transformed the South as Confederates fought to retain every inch of Southern land. As historian Richard Current writes, “God was on the side of the heaviest battalions.”
In the first years of the war, historians note, Confederate battlefield leadership was superior to the North which too often relied on political generals whose actions bordered on incompetence. By the time Grant assumed total command of Union forces, both leadership and strategy had changed. As with most prolonged wars, tactics and innovation led to new ways of fighting, stimulating a military “revolution” that favored the North. This includes the 1864-65 actions of Sherman in Georgia and the Carolinas as well as Sheridan in Virginia.
Although the North possessed far greater resources, this alone would not guarantee success on the battlefield. Grant’s Vicksburg campaign and other unconventional strategies were, in the long run, the determining elements leading to Appomattox. For military strategists today, this might be a valuable lesson when fighting in under-developed countries such as Afghanistan. When U.S. forces became bogged down in Iraq, generals called for more “boots on the ground.”
The Confederacy Overwhelmed
While it may be true that military success was dependent upon a number of other factors such as economic superiority, industrial capacity, and a greater population, the South might have been successful if any of a number of important battles had resulted in different outcomes. Had Lee followed the recommendations of Longstreet, for example, there might not have been a Gettysburg.
As it was, the South lost because it was overwhelmed and by mid-1864 could not stem the tide of destruction. Military action destroyed the political and economic system of the South, enabling Reconstruction efforts as early as 1864 to bring states back into the Union.
Sources:
- Gabor S. Boritt, Editor, Why the Confederacy Lost (Oxford University Press, 1992)
- T. Harry Williams, Lincoln and His Generals (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1952)
Join the Conversation