Southern advantages and how the south almost won the American civil war

[twc01]

South advantages

North attacking south defending

The largest advantage being the South did not have to destroy north, just cause enough damage to sew for peace. The north was the invaders and had to capture and defeat the south. The south had shorter supply lines and great geographical defensive position with many east/west mountains and rivers. The south would more than not have the advantage of being dug in,forts and defensive terrain in battles to help offset the numbers of the north. The confederacy had long coastline with over 2,500 miles and the Union navy started with a relativity small navy in 1861 numbered less than 40 usable ships. meaning it was very hard to blockade entire coast. Defending your country also meant citizens often helped provide food, shelter, and provide information on union whereabouts. While the north was invading a hostile country. *The weapons and tactics of the day favored defensive warfare.


Calvary

Early in war the north viewed Calvary as expensive and not worth raising in large numbers. It being to long to train up new units. The north also did not utilize Calvary the way the south did the first few years of the war being used almost entirely as scouts. Southerners were naturally better riders and shooters and could move faster and fight better on horse. Southern agrarian lifestyle and lack of rail and mass transit meant southerns relied on horses for travel and were more accustomed than the northern solider. Southerners came to the Calvary with their own mount, and were experienced riders with their horse. Northern Calvary were given by the military and required training. Sherman noted how General Forrest Calvary could “ Travel one hundred miles in less time than it takes our to travel ten”. A union officer said of the Calvary in Virginia led my Ashby “I can't catch them sir, they leap fences and walls like deer neither our men or horses are so trained”. Southern generals especially early in war consistent showed there better riding skills and better horsemanship by riding around entire union armies and in the case of Jo shelby entire states boosting southern morale A song was written early in war because of the dominance of southern Calvary under General Stuart in Virginia, some of the lyrics go like this

"If you want to have a good time, jine [Join] the cavalry!
Jine the cavalry! Jine the cavalry!
If you want to catch the Devil, if you want to have fun,
If you want to smell Hell, jine the cavalry!"


The south utilized Calvary from the onset to its full potential with many roles including engagements.. The south had more military trained Calvary officers. “More cavalry officers hailed from the South than from the North, and upon the outbreak of war the majority of those cavalry officers resigned their commissions and joined the Confederate cavalry, leaving the Union Army at a further competitive disadvantage. The south had great Calvary generals like Nathan Bedford Forrest, Jo Shelby, Joseph Wheeler, John Mosby, Jeb Stuart, John Morgan, John Wharton, Wade Hampton, Fitzhugh Lee, Quantrill , Stand Watie, William Anderson, Turner Ashby and more. While the north lacked great Calvary generals with really only Phil Sheridan being a great general. The north and south viewed southern Calvary as far superior and northern Calvary as not being able to stand in a major fight against southern Calvary until brandy station in June 63. Union General William Tecumseh Sherman described the Confederate cavalry in 1863 as “splendid riders, shots, and utterly reckless . . . the best Cavalry in the world.” . The south also massed artillery early in the war for more effectiveness, the north did not do so until Gettysburg and on.


Generals

Most would agree the south had a advantage in generals at the time of the civil war. Generals like lee, Jackson, Longstreet and many others. The reason being largely because “Seven of the eight military colleges in the country were in the South”. The northern collage west point was attended by large numbers of southern and norther generals. That means more commanders from the bottom up. More qualified regimental commanders,more company commanders,more brigade commanders etc This also means the larger union army has more general spots to fill, meaning watered down generals and hard pushed to put together a top to bottom well commanded army.. The south also produced many great generals with no military training such as generals Forrest, Wade Hapton, John Morgan and others. The north suffered to find Great generals even at the highest level. When your best general in the entire war [usually seen as] is caught complete off guard at Shiloh and his army saved by one last hill and the opposing army commander being killed. And when Grant is nicknamed “The butcher” not for killing off large enemies numbers but his own, the northern generals abilities should be questioned.


South more adapt and ready for war agrarian lifestyle

As said before the south had advantage in military collages and “A larger number of West Point graduates and a greater proportion of Regular Army troops hailed from the South “.
Southerners were more often hunters and learned to shoot from a young age needing less training and being better shots.


Slaves

Many see the slaves as unusable for war by the south. Yet it was the slaves who worked in the fields that allowed the whites to go to war without a production drop. Slaves fed the confederate armies. They built fortifications, repaired bridges, built railroads and did labor work allowing larger % of whites to be in combat. General Beauregard mentioned how because the slaves built the defensive works, that allowed rest and time for the soldiers to train more. North would lose production when men went to war on farms and jobs across the north. There were also thousands of slaves, and free blacks who would fight for the south or would be medics,cooks etc in the CSA army.


General Grant memoirs on Union generals saying what a splendid fight the south put up to last four years and southern morale and will to fight

The south overall had a greater will to fight defending its country and way of life. While the north was divided on many issues with many not wanting the war. General grant in his memoirs said how the south was a “Whole military camp” able to fully muster its country and potential. He said all southerners were involved in army even psychically disabled. Woman and slaves worked and feed the armies. The south had No rear had to be protected so all troops could be sent to the front to fight for every inch. The Press in south was loyal to the cause while in north often disloyal. Often making southern success seem greater and northern setbacks larger to turn opinion from the war. North had to guard prisoner camps to prevent there release by outside forces. North had to guard northern industrial cities to prevent destruction from burning, plans were made by southern and northern populace. The southern cause was popular and well supported with higher morale among south for war than the north for war. By end of war almost universal that between 14 and 60 ages southerns fought in the war. North had to protect supply, at all areas from attack even places that were not attacked must be guarded or would be attacked Out of concern a Forrest or Morgan would attack. CSA Calvary had nothing to guard or protect but could dash around and attack week sports holding many times the number of men from the north out of war to defend. South were defending often in battles while entrenched and better positions. Northern cities and towns seemed as if at peace, cities grew production inventions aimed at regular civil life. The north was not and did not fully fight the war because the motivation was not there.


South almost won?

I just finished reading, How the south could have won the civil war Bevin Alexander Crown publishing NY . I found it very interesting. He argued no war is inevitable, many times upsets happen such as in American history such as revolution. Most of his arguments I thought were not so convincing. But one After bull run Jackson wanted 5,000 men to block the federal retreat. It would have caused mass surrenderof the disoraganized , routed, green union troops bringing a early end to war. Union commander George B McClellan said the confederates could have easily won the days after bull run “ the confederacy committed its greatest error in not following up the victory at bull run”

64 elections

The 64 elections were considered to go against Lincoln by almost all of the day. Newspapers grant, Sherman, Longstreet, politicians and Lincoln himself felt the north was sick of war and ready for peace. Lincoln new he needed something to show the war was near over. Lee and grant were in a long siege in Richmond, Johnson and Sherman near Atalanta. Pools were showing Lincoln would not be reelected. Lincoln told his generals he needed something big or the war would end. Sherman and grant both could not break through against well entrenched armies in Atlanta and Richmond. The south looked to win their independence. Than Jefferson Davis replaces the defensive minded Joe Johnston with Aggressive John bell hood. Hood against the advice of all officers in army imedetley attacks, and destroyed 1/3 his army in 3 battles and is forced to retreat out of Atlanta. Sherman captures with great victory the second most important city left to the south and beats the second largest army. Know the north sees the end to the war and Lincoln wins the election.


Shiloh

Albert Johnson catches Grant totally by surprise [Grant not even on field first day] pushes his army to the brink, beating them back to one last hill. General Johnson is killed during the battle by a stray bullet. Had Johnson not been killed, or had that one last hill been taken, it would have been worst defeat of the war for either side in the field. The reinforcements the next day that changed the battle would not have mattered. Grant never would have taken command of union armies and would have been a prisoner or permanent out of command after such a loss. The union army of west would be destroyed, Tennessee retaken and likely Kentucky possible causing them to join the south. Vicksburg operation by grant [ his best work of war] would not have happened. With all the other victories in east in 62 the north would have been complete demoralized. There was also a supply mix up in confederate command, they went without food many stopped to eat federal food during the federal retreat at Shiloh losing time and stopping just short of the last hill and complete destruction of grants army.

[Cyclops]

The North outnumbered the South's population 2:1. In industry, rail capability, GDP, naval infrastructure etc. the multiples are much greater.

It is a testament to the great tactical skills of Lee and other Southern generals, and the fighting spirit imparted by fighting mostly on "home soil" that the desruction of the South was not completed in a few months.

The USA has attacked and subdued every other polity on the north American continent with the exception of Canada, which was backed by the British empire and is now a US handmaiden like Australia. In the event of a freak victory by the South the north would have tooled up and gone again and bulldozed them.

[Hresvelgr]

It's a testament to the skills of Lost Cause propaganda that the southern war effort is so commended and admired. The North made its fair share of blunders that stretched the war out, but the South, especially Lee who ranks up with Erwin Rommel at the top of the list of most overrated generals in history, also made plenty of blunders including going on an ill-conceived offensive in what should have been a defensive war. In fact, while the attackers are almost always disadvantaged and likely to suffer notably higher casualties than the defender if both sides are competently led and of equal tech capabilities, the Confederacy lost just about as many soldiers if not more than the Union did, owing to things like stupid assaults like at Gettysburg and Franklin (Pickett's Charge was awful and it's astounding that Lee is so commended despite it while Grant is labelled a butcher for Cold Harbor), as well as inferior industry giving them fewer and less effective artillery. Even the rebs both respected and feared the ability of Yankee gunners. All in all, modern casualty estimates for the entire war have risen dramatically, owing largely to the lack of accurate Confederate reports on their own losses that modern research has started to fill the blanks in.

In any case, much of your arguments rely on unsupported stereotypes and legends, such as the idea that Southern generals were generally chivalrous and skillful, or that the war was incredibly more popular in the South than the North, when in reality the Confederate government was vastly (and hypocritically) more tyrannical than that of the Union, sedition being treated with not only jail but outright execution. There were guerrilla wars within the south between rebels and Unionists, and civilians sympathetic to the Union were often murdered by lynching or shooting. The entire western portion of Virginia formed a new state to avoid being part of the secession, and eastern Tennessee tried the same. Also, the North doesn't lack for agrarian areas or people, it's not all one big giant city up here, you know. Especially back in the 1860's.

[Roma_Victrix]

The South will rise again! This time...with Viagra.

Lee's greatest mistake was engaging the North at Gettysburg. If the whole campaign had been avoided and instead had he focused all his energies on defending against another Union invasion, the Confederacy might have lived a bit longer than it did, or if it was very lucky, outlast the 19th century before reunion (by force of arms or other coercion). However, there was no way in the end that the South would have outpaced the far more industrialized Northern states, whose war machine could continue to bear down on them with far greater resources and manpower. The only thing that could upset that would be striking an alliance with the British to form a naval blockade against the North. That wouldn't be very likely, though, even with the British need for cotton. That's because the latter immediately turned to boosting cotton production in Egypt and India once the Confederates reduced cotton exports in hopes to force the British to side with them.

[IronBrig4]

North attacking south defending

That was one of the major advantages the Rebellion had, true. The rebels made offensives of their own that were blunted and turned back.

Calvary

Union cavalry was terribly under-utilized, true. The official stance was it took two years to train a cavalry regiment up to snuff. Two years after the war started, Union cavalrymen started beating their rebel counterparts.

That's not to say that Union cavalrymen were incompetent. They had many skilled horsemen from Kentucky and eastern Tennessee. The problem was those riders were the hard-drinking, rowdy types who had no discipline. They were excellent horsemen, but not soldiers.

Generals

The rebel advantage in military leadership was only apparent in the East. Union generals consistently won in the West and Far West.

South more adapt and ready for war agrarian lifestyle

And THAT is straight out of Lost Cause propaganda. Most people in Union states lived in rural areas. Nearly half the soldiers worked as farmers. The craftsmen and artisans (carpenters, blacksmiths, etc.) still lived in rural villages and small towns. States like Minnesota, Michigan, and Iowa were almost entirely agrarian. Even Massachusetts and Connecticut depended heavily on agriculture.

Plus, just because you know how to hunt doesn't make you a good soldier. It's one thing to shoot deer or fowl. It's an entirely different matter to stand in shoulder to shoulder and fire three rounds a minute while your buddies are killed all around you.

Slaves

The Union could lose production by sending the farmers and machinists off to fight, but they replaced them with increased mechanization. There were very few slaves who fought for the Confederacy. The last thing white Southerners wanted was a group of armed and trained slaves. There were a lot who functioned as camp followers and laborers, but they weren't fighters and the vast majority were certainly not there to support the rebel cause. Remember, every time the Union army advanced through the Confederacy they attracted swarms of volunteers from newly liberated slaves.

General Grant memoirs on Union generals saying what a splendid fight the south put up to last four years and southern morale and will to fight

Again, this is Lost Cause propaganda. Those who romanticize the Confederacy like the idea of united Southrons defending kith and kin from demoralized Yankee conscripts. The Confederacy started fragmenting early on. It instituted the first national draft in US history and could never find enough recruits. They had to police the population with "Home Guard" who were often no better than bandits. Add to that the "taxes in kind" that resulted in Confederate tax collectors confiscating produce from Southern civilians, along with Confederate soldiers themselves stealing livestock and crops, and you had an extremely unhappy population. There were bread riots in many Southern cities (Richmond is the best example).

Then the Union forces adopted a more aggressive strategy in wrecking economic assets, meaning Union soldiers were marching through Georgia, South Carolina, and the Shenandoah Valley, and the rebel armies could not handle them.

Now let's talk about the dysfunctional Confederate government. It couldn't get anything done. Without political parties, personal disagreements turned into complete political gridlock. The US government, on the other hand, distilled those disagreements into mundane party politics. And with the Southern delegations out of the way, the US was able to pass the Morrill Land-Grant Acts, the Homestead Act, and the Pacific Railroad Act.

Faced with starving families at home, resentment that the major slaveholders were exempt from the draft, and hopelessness, it's no wonder that rebel soldiers deserted in droves.

South almost won?

The best they could have hoped for was a negotiated peace. After First Bull Run, the rebels were just as exhausted. They were just as green, and shocked at the high casualties.

If you want to talk about "almost" scenarios, then the Union had all but won by June of 1862. The rebels were retreating in the West, their offensive in New Mexico had been turned back at Glorietta Pass, and Union soldiers were on the outskirts of Richmond.

64 elections

Well, yes. Sherman's capture of Atlanta could not have been better timed.

Shiloh

You're assuming the Union population would have just given up in 1862. It probably would have caused a huge rush to recruiting stations because citizens in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Kentucky would have redoubled their efforts to raise troops.

Many of the points you raise are Lost Cause revisionism. The old arguments that some white Southerners still use today to excuse a defeat. "Well, we COULD have won if this, this, and this happened." It makes them feel better somehow.

[athanaric]

I'd agree with Cyclops and IronBrig here - the OP focuses mostly on military matters, but in the long run, the CSA had a problem based on population structure and size as well as other socio-economic factors, even if they had used all of their military forces to the fullest potential. Not to mention that their caste system, and slavery in general, was becoming increasingly unpopular throughout the Western world and they'd be facing a legitimacy problem regarding foreign relations (or they would've had to go through a very difficult internal process of abolition without crashing their economy and causing complete chaos).

[Caligula's_Horse]

"almost won" is quite a stretch. Honestly, they were lucky to last as long as they did, considering the north's crushing logistical superiority, and most of the CSA's achievements can be attributed more to incompetence among the Union's military leadership then any southern brilliance.
Especially considering that the south's entire strategy was flawed from the get go. The objective in an independence war is to exhaust the enemy's will to fight through a combination of attrition and making the war seem too far off to be worth the bother, yet Lee kept pushing north which made him seem more threatening as opposed to irrelevant (this is one of those rare instances where being considered provincial is a good thing), and where union losses to attrition are minimal, and his own are at their highest; defense in depth would have served him much better.

And as mentioned, even if they did manage to exhaust the north into giving up the fight, the confederacy had some serious internal and to a lesser extent diplomatic issues to contend with. Turns out a freshly spawned secessionist movement emphasizing state rights over national government isn't particularly fond of centralized rule or mutual cooperation among its federal subjects, and that being slave supporting in an era when everyone else in their cultural sphere was starting to emancipate theirs isn't a great engine for generating diplomatic capital. Egypt and India's cotton production ramping up around this period certainly wouldn't have helped.
Even if the south would have managed to break free of the north at first, it may well have been reintegrated a decade or two down the line. Or alternatively it would have kept on balkanizing further (potentially with bits of it undergoing reintegration to the Union), as by now the member states have gotten it into their heads that succeeding is a perfectly acceptable solution to their problems.

Also, how is a rural population a military advantage in our scenario?
I get how it helps maintaining a standing army during peacetime (farm boys joining the army to escape the farm is a cliche for a reason), but once drafts come into the picture, the army's going to be manned either way. I suppose the farm boys are mostly fitter then their urban brethren, but compared to the urban population's greater manufacturing capacity during a period in history when the common grunt require less skill then ever and industry was starting to become the most vital cog in a nation's war machine, that's not much of a trade.

[Dick Cheney.]

"almost won" is quite a stretch. Honestly, they were lucky to last as long as they did, considering the north's crushing logistical superiority, and most of the CSA's achievements can be attributed more to incompetence among the Union's military leadership then any southern brilliance.
Especially considering that the south's entire strategy was flawed from the get go. The objective in an independence war is to exhaust the enemy's will to fight through a combination of attrition and making the war seem too far off to be worth the bother, yet Lee kept pushing north which made him seem more threatening as opposed to irrelevant (this is one of those rare instances where being considered provincial is a good thing), and where union losses to attrition are minimal, and his own are at their highest; defense in depth would have served him much better.

Disagree. The south wins the civil war if they are able to flip the border states (Missouri, Delaware, Maryland, and Kentucky) which is only acheived by invading the north and driving Union forces out. Furthermore, Washington DC is an excellent target of opportunity due to its close proximity to confederate territory and its strategic importance as the political & military nerve center of the Union cause. Capturing the Union capital would then have most likely have led to foreign recognition (by Europe) for the south along with Lincoln's official ouster as president; and then without Lincoln, the rest would have been history.

The USA has attacked and subdued every other polity on the north American continent with the exception of Canada.

.. and Pancho Villa.

[pannonian]

Disagree. The south wins the civil war if they are able to flip the border states (Missouri, Delaware, Maryland, and Kentucky) which is only acheived by invading the north and driving Union forces out. Furthermore, Washington DC is an excellent target of opportunity due to its close proximity to confederate territory and its strategic importance as the political & military nerve center of the Union cause. Capturing the Union capital would then have most likely have led to foreign recognition (by Europe) for the south along with Lincoln's official ouster as president; and then without Lincoln, the rest would have been history.

Hasn't the Union lost its capital in the past, yet continued to fight? I seem to remember a song about it, something about a flag.

[twc01]

It's a testament to the skills of Lost Cause propaganda that the southern war effort is so commended and admired. The North made its fair share of blunders that stretched the war out, but the South, especially Lee who ranks up with Erwin Rommel at the top of the list of most overrated generals in history, also made plenty of blunders including going on an ill-conceived offensive in what should have been a defensive war. In fact, while the attackers are almost always disadvantaged and likely to suffer notably higher casualties than the defender if both sides are competently led and of equal tech capabilities,

I agree up to hear for the most part. I may even agree lee was overrated, not as much as you suggest though.

In any case, much of your arguments rely on unsupported stereotypes and legends, such as the idea that Southern generals were generally chivalrous and skillful, or that the war was incredibly more popular in the South than the North, when in reality the Confederate government was vastly (and hypocritically) more tyrannical than that of the Union, sedition being treated with not only jail but outright execution. There were guerrilla wars within the south between rebels and Unionists, and civilians sympathetic to the Union were often murdered by lynching or shooting. The entire western portion of Virginia formed a new state to avoid being part of the secession, and eastern Tennessee tried the same. Also, the North doesn't lack for agrarian areas or people, it's not all one big giant city up here, you know. Especially back in the 1860's.

Generals. I am not sure how you would claim the north had equal generals. I think if you read newspapers/solider journals/ Lincolns many replacements you will find the north struggled to find good generals even at the army command level. Before Gettysburg in the east the north leadership was horrid, and as you said dragged out the war. I don't see how a study of the major battles of the war would lead one to the conclusion the north was well led. You did not offer a reason so i am not sure.

As for the war being popular more so in the south than north, did not come from "Lost Cause propaganda" but General grants memoirs. The north had its own revolts in NYC,Maryland and many other places.

[twc01]

Union cavalry was terribly under-utilized, true. The official stance was it took two years to train a cavalry regiment up to snuff. Two years after the war started, Union cavalrymen started beating their rebel counterparts.

That's not to say that Union cavalrymen were incompetent. They had many skilled horsemen from Kentucky and eastern Tennessee. The problem was those riders were the hard-drinking, rowdy types who had no discipline. They were excellent horsemen, but not soldiers.

They "won" [Really a draw and took more loses] their first major engagement in 63. They did not surpass the csa Calvary. From what i have read the north accepted they were not as good riders, but relied on better weapons late in war late 64-65.

The rebel advantage in military leadership was only apparent in the East. Union generals consistently won in the West and Far West.

But would you not agree that had more to do with weapons and manpower?. If we were to take Grant and Sherman out for sure.

And THAT is straight out of Lost Cause propaganda. Most people in Union states lived in rural areas. Nearly half the soldiers worked as farmers. The craftsmen and artisans (carpenters, blacksmiths, etc.) still lived in rural villages and small towns. States like Minnesota, Michigan, and Iowa were almost entirely agrarian. Even Massachusetts and Connecticut depended heavily on agriculture.

Plus, just because you know how to hunt doesn't make you a good soldier. It's one thing to shoot deer or fowl. It's an entirely different matter to stand in shoulder to shoulder and fire three rounds a minute while your buddies are killed all around you.

Very true, good points. I must ask what is lost cause propaganda? I have heard a few times know. Yes many in the north lived in rural areas. Many more in south did. North had more cities and more mas transit less reliant on guns and horses. But if i had to choose to fight along side a hunter or someone who has not held a weapon, i chose the deer killer.

The Union could lose production by sending the farmers and machinists off to fight, but they replaced them with increased mechanization. There were very few slaves who fought for the Confederacy. The last thing white Southerners wanted was a group of armed and trained slaves. There were a lot who functioned as camp followers and laborers, but they weren't fighters and the vast majority were certainly not there to support the rebel cause. Remember, every time the Union army advanced through the Confederacy they attracted swarms of volunteers from newly liberated slaves.

But as grant said, the slaved produced on the farms and did all the labor that allowed the whites to fight. You need the production behind the lines as well ,slaves made that possible for the south. Not sure what you meant by replaced with mechanization, please explain.

Again, this is Lost Cause propaganda. Those who romanticize the Confederacy like the idea of united Southrons defending kith and kin from demoralized Yankee conscripts. The Confederacy started fragmenting early on. It instituted the first national draft in US history and could never find enough recruits. They had to police the population with "Home Guard" who were often no better than bandits. Add to that the "taxes in kind" that resulted in Confederate tax collectors confiscating produce from Southern civilians, along with Confederate soldiers themselves stealing livestock and crops, and you had an extremely unhappy population. There were bread riots in many Southern cities (Richmond is the best example).

Then the Union forces adopted a more aggressive strategy in wrecking economic assets, meaning Union soldiers were marching through Georgia, South Carolina, and the Shenandoah Valley, and the rebel armies could not handle them.

Now let's talk about the dysfunctional Confederate government. It couldn't get anything done. Without political parties, personal disagreements turned into complete political gridlock. The US government, on the other hand, distilled those disagreements into mundane party politics. And with the Southern delegations out of the way, the US was able to pass the Morrill Land-Grant Acts, the Homestead Act, and the Pacific Railroad Act.

Faced with starving families at home, resentment that the major slaveholders were exempt from the draft, and hopelessness, it's no wonder that rebel soldiers deserted in droves.

"Again, this is Lost Cause propaganda."

You guys keep saying this yet all I have done is quote what is in general Grants book
http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Perso.../dp/1438297076

In fact he will give you many more examples of what happened in the north during the war because of its unpopularity. He will also give examples of how unified the south was compared to the north. Was there unrest north and south? of course it was a civil war. I am saying as a whole the south was more unified, they did indeed start to fall apart from within the last 2 years. However the average southerner was more dedicated in defending his country from invaders, than the north to force them to stay in the union.

The best they could have hoped for was a negotiated peace. After First Bull Run, the rebels were just as exhausted. They were just as green, and shocked at the high casualties.

If you want to talk about "almost" scenarios, then the Union had all but won by June of 1862. The rebels were retreating in the West, their offensive in New Mexico had been turned back at Glorietta Pass, and Union soldiers were on the outskirts of Richmond.

I agree. The north had dozens of "almost" they should have ended the war much earlier. I also never meant to say the south could beat the north, so I apologize. i meant that they could have caused the norths will to keep fighting to drop low enough. The war was always up to the north, but could their will to fight stay strong to finish the job.

You're assuming the Union population would have just given up in 1862. It probably would have caused a huge rush to recruiting stations because citizens in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Kentucky would have redoubled their efforts to raise troops.

Many of the points you raise are Lost Cause revisionism. The old arguments that some white Southerners still use today to excuse a defeat. "Well, we COULD have won if this, this, and this happened." It makes them feel better somehow.

I say the north would have been demoralized. Since when would major defeats encourage recruitment? After Chancellorsville the last in a string of defeats in the east. 40,000 men deserted in the months leading up to Gettysburg.Because they had lost yet another battle. Take away their largest victory of the war yet [Shiloh] and add a even bigger defeat, I say same happens everywhere east/west and at the voting ballet.

[Cyclops]

Disagree. The south wins the civil war if they are able to flip the border states (Missouri, Delaware, Maryland, and Kentucky) which is only acheived by invading the north and driving Union forces out. Furthermore, Washington DC is an excellent target of opportunity due to its close proximity to confederate territory and its strategic importance as the political & military nerve center of the Union cause. Capturing the Union capital would then have most likely have led to foreign recognition (by Europe) for the south along with Lincoln's official ouster as president; and then without Lincoln, the rest would have been history.

I agree with Shelby Foote when he says "I think that the North fought that war with one hand behind its back". If the South had ticked any one of the boxes you mention the North would've just brough the other hand out.

I've heard the military situation raked over, but the basic facts stand. Both sides had difficulty winning off their own dungheaps. The CSA had zero naval capability beyond gimmicks which denied any shadow of victory. The fact the loss of Richmond spelt the death of the CSA does not mean the US would have fallen if Washington fell: the USA was a real nation, not an ad hoc pretext for slavery conservation. The war was decided by burning farms; to a degree it was heavy COIN ops.

... and Pancho Villa.

ERB Teddy Roosevelt vs Pancho Villa BEGIN!

[twc01]

"almost won" is quite a stretch. Honestly, they were lucky to last as long as they did, considering the north's crushing logistical superiority, and most of the CSA's achievements can be attributed more to incompetence among the Union's military leadership then any southern brilliance.
Especially considering that the south's entire strategy was flawed from the get go. The objective in an independence war is to exhaust the enemy's will to fight through a combination of attrition and making the war seem too far off to be worth the bother, yet Lee kept pushing north which made him seem more threatening as opposed to irrelevant (this is one of those rare instances where being considered provincial is a good thing), and where union losses to attrition are minimal, and his own are at their highest; defense in depth would have served him much better.

And as mentioned, even if they did manage to exhaust the north into giving up the fight, the confederacy had some serious internal and to a lesser extent diplomatic issues to contend with. Turns out a freshly spawned secessionist movement emphasizing state rights over national government isn't particularly fond of centralized rule or mutual cooperation among its federal subjects, and that being slave supporting in an era when everyone else in their cultural sphere was starting to emancipate theirs isn't a great engine for generating diplomatic capital. Egypt and India's cotton production ramping up around this period certainly wouldn't have helped.
Even if the south would have managed to break free of the north at first, it may well have been reintegrated a decade or two down the line. Or alternatively it would have kept on balkanizing further (potentially with bits of it undergoing reintegration to the Union), as by now the member states have gotten it into their heads that succeeding is a perfectly acceptable solution to their problems.

Also, how is a rural population a military advantage in our scenario?
I get how it helps maintaining a standing army during peacetime (farm boys joining the army to escape the farm is a cliche for a reason), but once drafts come into the picture, the army's going to be manned either way. I suppose the farm boys are mostly fitter then their urban brethren, but compared to the urban population's greater manufacturing capacity during a period in history when the common grunt require less skill then ever and industry was starting to become the most vital cog in a nation's war machine, that's not much of a trade.

By almost won i am not saying they could have won on the field, but caused the norths will to carry on the fight to drop low enough. I agree they did well to last so long and much had to do with the norths mistakes and blunders.

I agree Lee's method was not the way to go. he was great tactician but his overall strategy was not the best for the south.
You mentioned Jeff Davis strategy of doing enough damage and defending, that would have been mine as well.


Yes I think the south would have been pressured by England and other countries to end slavery in the coming decades.


I agree industry was a better advantage than farm boys. I was not saying that agrarian people was a better advantage, just a advantage.

[twc01]

I agree with Shelby Foote when he says "I think that the North fought that war with one hand behind its back". If the South had ticked any one of the boxes you mention the North would've just brough the other hand out.

I agree. In fact to me that famous quote shows in part, the north was never fully in the war. It was not as invested as the south. However while I believe the quote is true, i think it applies to the north capabilities, not its will to fight. It never reached its capabilities because the will was never fully there. Had it been than the south would never have any chance at gaining a ceasefire.

[Dick Cheney.]

I agree with Shelby Foote when he says "I think that the North fought that war with one hand behind its back". If the South had ticked any one of the boxes you mention the North would've just brough the other hand out.

I don't doubt that the Union greatly outmatched the South in material might, but I do doubt that the Union would have had the stomach to go forward en mass without Abraham Lincoln directing the ship. The loss of Washington DC would have spelled political doom for any president, and the end result would be President-Elect George B. McClellan negotiating an immediate cease fire treaty with Robert E Lee The Great (who would have been Hannibal-Alexander like among the union press & union officers after taking DC). Lincoln was the only person who was able to rally the country after the unexpected shocks at Fort Sumter and battle of bull run, and without him and emancipation, I really dont see the Republican Party staying together or the north having a poltical calculs to go forward with total war.

Militarily though, I'll just say again quickly, that the CSA's best chance of winning was to win over the border states which must be accomplished by invading the north.

ERB Teddy Roosevelt vs Pancho Villa BEGIN!

lol

[Hresvelgr]

Hasn't the Union lost its capital in the past, yet continued to fight? I seem to remember a song about it, something about a flag.

If you're thinking about the Star Spangled Banner, that was about the siege of Fort McHenry by British troops in the War of 1812, but the fort never fell. The Brits did take and burn Washington though, and in the Revolutionary War they captured Philadelphia which was basically the capital of the American rebels, and in neither case did the will to fight evaporate at all. The American Civil War was a different case however. Not because the North would've stopped fighting if Washington fell, mind you, but because it was much more heavily defended then than at any point in history prior and Lee's plan was an utter pipe-dream on the scale of the Nazi invasion plans of Britain. There were constantly tons of troops stationed in an around the city, including several forts surrounding it. And the South didn't have a navy to speak of, so a total siege would've been untenable. I've actually read convincing arguments that it would have been in the Union's best interests to fall back from Gettysburg, because there were better defensive positions away from there and if the Army of Northern Virginia drove back the Yankees on the first day of the battle Meade would have fallen back to the Pipe Creek Line from where he could possibly deal the Confederates a more decisive defeat than what happened at Gettysburg historically.

I agree up to hear for the most part. I may even agree lee was overrated, not as much as you suggest though.





Generals. I am not sure how you would claim the north had equal generals. I think if you read newspapers/solider journals/ Lincolns many replacements you will find the north struggled to find good generals even at the army command level. Before Gettysburg in the east the north leadership was horrid, and as you said dragged out the war. I don't see how a study of the major battles of the war would lead one to the conclusion the north was well led. You did not offer a reason so i am not sure.

As for the war being popular more so in the south than north, did not come from "Lost Cause propaganda" but General grants memoirs. The north had its own revolts in NYC,Maryland and many other places.

For starters, I don't agree that even most of the northern bumblers were actually horrid. McClellan dawdled all the damn time, but he was a good organizer. Burnside was competent at a lower command than that of an entire army (and was a skilled inventor of weapons and pioneer of facial hair). The generals in the west though generally outperformed their Confederate counterparts. Grant made his rise out west, and it was the western theater that won the war, moreso than the more popular eastern theater of operations. Vicksburg was nothing short of a brilliant operation which was more critical to the Union's victory in the war than the Army of the Potomac's defeat of Lee at Gettysburg which happened simultaneously. Besides Grant there was also George Thomas, as well as the Union Admiral David Farragut, general Winfield Scott (who retired due to age shortly after the start of the war but conceived of the crucial "Anaconda Plan" to strangle the South), and Philip Sheridan, all of them sterling leaders. The South on the other hand had to deal with the likes of Braxton Bragg, JEB Stuart, John Bell Hood, and Leonidas Polk, who while not of a particularly high rank nevertheless deserves mention as being possibly the worst general of the entire war.

As for the stuff about Southerners being more agrarian and whatnot, I still doubt it since given the much larger population of the north I'd imagine there'd have been just as many Yankee soldiers fresh off the farms and countryside in the Union Army, and it ain't like no Confederate soldiers came from places like Atlanta, Richmond or New Orleans. In any case, all them "deer-killers" didn't exactly do the South any good, in light of the fact that they still suffered equal or even higher losses than the Union in what was ostensibly a defensive war. Even when they weren't engaged in bizarre assaults like at the Battle of Franklin, the Confederates often suffered higher losses. Take Missionary Ridge for example. Confederates were positioned along the top of a mountain ridge with rifle pits and artillery backing them. Totally exposed Union troops charged uphill nonetheless, even without orders at first, and drove the rebs off while having fewer casualties. Fat lot of good deer-killing did there. If Grant ever did say anything along those lines, he was apparently wrong and in any case statistics trump anecdotes, regardless of how involved a person was.

[IronBrig4]

They "won" [Really a draw and took more loses] their first major engagement in 63. They did not surpass the csa Calvary. From what i have read the north accepted they were not as good riders, but relied on better weapons late in war late 64-65.

But at Brandy Station, they were able to fight the rebel cavalry to a standstill AND had achieved tactical surprise. That battle made the Union cavalry a force to be reckoned with. Stuart couldn't ride around the Army of the Potomac after that. Union cavalry successfully screened army movements, performed reconnaissance, and threatened rebel supply lines and communications for the rest of the war. That was exactly what good cavalry were supposed to do.

But would you not agree that had more to do with weapons and manpower?. If we were to take Grant and Sherman out for sure.

Absolutely not. The rebels had their fair share of incompetent leaders.

Very true, good points. I must ask what is lost cause propaganda? I have heard a few times know. Yes many in the north lived in rural areas. Many more in south did. North had more cities and more mas transit less reliant on guns and horses. But if i had to choose to fight along side a hunter or someone who has not held a weapon, i chose the deer killer.

The "Lost Cause" is a collection of myths that white Southerners latched on to during and after the Civil War. The Confederacy had lost at every conceivable level; its economy was wrecked, it had no political standing, and it had sustained severe manpower losses. Many white Southerners used the Lost Cause to rationalize their defeat and portray themselves as innocent victims. It still persists in some circles today. Those myths perpetuate the notion that the war was fought over states' rights, and that slavery had little or nothing to do with it. They also argue that the Confederacy lost because it was heavily outnumbered and outgunned, but that Southerners had to try for the sake of honor. It gained support during the turn of the century as Civil War veterans began to die and Americans wondered how to commemorate the conflict. It was also modified over the decades to perpetuate white supremacy and domestic terrorism as disgruntled white Southerners took out their frustrations on free blacks and Republicans who got too "uppity."

And Southern states had cities of their own. New Orleans, Richmond, Atlanta, etc. Again, the South was more agrarian but the majority of Union citizens still lived in rural areas. Yet another element of Lost Cause hagiography holds that one Southern soldier could whip ten Yankee hirelings, partially because it assumed Northerners were soft city boys. Again, just another excuse so that Southerners could deny any culpability in their defeat.

But as grant said, the slaved produced on the farms and did all the labor that allowed the whites to fight. You need the production behind the lines as well ,slaves made that possible for the south. Not sure what you meant by replaced with mechanization, please explain.

Mechanization, as in Cyrus McCormick's mechanical reaper and many other inventions that freed up Union manpower. With more efficient tools, more farmers and laborers could enlist. There is no question that the Union states led in innovation, and that included labor-saving devices.

In fact he will give you many more examples of what happened in the north during the war because of its unpopularity. He will also give examples of how unified the south was compared to the north. Was there unrest north and south? of course it was a civil war. I am saying as a whole the south was more unified, they did indeed start to fall apart from within the last 2 years. However the average southerner was more dedicated in defending his country from invaders, than the north to force them to stay in the union.

That's the problem with just using one person's memoirs. Other memoirs might highlight the multitude of issues that plagued the Southern war effort.

The average Southerner was not more dedicated. Look at the desertions, riots, and dysfunctional government. There were folks like Jefferson Davis who swore to defend to the last ditch, but most Southerners had had their fill towards the end. Fact is they were a psychologically defeated people. As for Union dedication, most Union supporters thought they were fighting an existential threat. The belief was that if the US was split due to civil war, then it would further fragment and then be dismembered or neutered like every other republic had been. And that would've been the end of the American experiment in self-government. The US was able to consistently mobilize its resources and maintain a sustained war effort from start to finish. More importantly, the US government remained functional while the Confederate government was just gridlocked.

As for unity, look at West Virginia and smaller breakaways such as the Republic of Winston and Kingdom of Jones. Then you had pro-secession Texans massacring pro-Union Germans in Texas. There was little political unity in the south once economic hardship started to set in.

I agree. The north had dozens of "almost" they should have ended the war much earlier. I also never meant to say the south could beat the north, so I apologize. i meant that they could have caused the norths will to keep fighting to drop low enough. The war was always up to the north, but could their will to fight stay strong to finish the job.

Yes, that was an issue. But you are assuming unified political will in the Confederacy when there was none after the war's earliest phases.

I say the north would have been demoralized. Since when would major defeats encourage recruitment? After Chancellorsville the last in a string of defeats in the east. 40,000 men deserted in the months leading up to Gettysburg.Because they had lost yet another battle. Take away their largest victory of the war yet [Shiloh] and add a even bigger defeat, I say same happens everywhere east/west and at the voting ballet.

Possibly. Or Grant's army could have rallied and decisively beaten the rebels somewhere in Ohio. It's useless to speculate on that because these speculative scenarios depend on the assumption that every other event would have played out historically.

[Caligula's_Horse]

Disagree. The south wins the civil war if they are able to flip the border states (Missouri, Delaware, Maryland, and Kentucky) which is only acheived by invading the north and driving Union forces out. Furthermore, Washington DC is an excellent target of opportunity due to its close proximity to confederate territory and its strategic importance as the political & military nerve center of the Union cause. Capturing the Union capital would then have most likely have led to foreign recognition (by Europe) for the south along with Lincoln's official ouster as president; and then without Lincoln, the rest would have been history.

Actually taking DC could easily do more harm then good. The government would have simply been evacuated further north, except now the whole union is mightily pissed off, mobilizing for total war. DC actually wasn't that crucial in terms of manpower reserves, strategic value or industry; the north's actual capacity to keep fighting would have remained largely intact, except now its better motivated.
Lincoln himself isn't that crucial in a scenario involving DC being taken. The Union, unlike the confederacy, was a long established nation, reliant on institutions rather then key individuals, and capable of sustaining no small amount of damage without undergoing collapse. Case in point, the British took DC (temporarily) the war of 1812, and it didn't help them all that much. And this is all assuming taking DC was even realistically achievable, which Lee's consistent failures to push north suggest was not the case, and this is under the best tactician the south had (not much of a strategist though).

Flipping border states is also more of a matter of convincing them then taking them by force. A border state joining willfully is an useful asset; a border state forced into the confederacy is a spiteful piece of occupied land that at least in the short term soaks up more military resources then it produces.
Defeating the northern army may be a crucial step to convince a few swing states, but it would have worked just as well, or perhaps even better, if that northern defeat happened on southern soil (makes the south look less like the aggressor).

[twc01]

For starters, I don't agree that even most of the northern bumblers were actually horrid. McClellan dawdled all the damn time, but he was a good organizer. Burnside was competent at a lower command than that of an entire army (and was a skilled inventor of weapons and pioneer of facial hair). The generals in the west though generally outperformed their Confederate counterparts. Grant made his rise out west, and it was the western theater that won the war, moreso than the more popular eastern theater of operations. Vicksburg was nothing short of a brilliant operation which was more critical to the Union's victory in the war than the Army of the Potomac's defeat of Lee at Gettysburg which happened simultaneously. Besides Grant there was also George Thomas, as well as the Union Admiral David Farragut, general Winfield Scott (who retired due to age shortly after the start of the war but conceived of the crucial "Anaconda Plan" to strangle the South), and Philip Sheridan, all of them sterling leaders. The South on the other hand had to deal with the likes of Braxton Bragg, JEB Stuart, John Bell Hood, and Leonidas Polk, who while not of a particularly high rank nevertheless deserves mention as being possibly the worst general of the entire war.

well I agree with most. But to name a good organizer, who did just that, organize, a retired scott who said lee was the best solider he ever saw, and burnside to make your case in my opinion is more proof that the north fell short. Hood was a amazing general at the division level, horrid at army command. Yet you say burnside is good general and hood not for just that reason. Just a double standard. I could list many southern generals but I am sure your aware already. To me the north had 4 good/great generals. grant,sherman,meade, sheridan. Also Stuart is not a good general? I agree he gets overrated in southern Calvary, but name me a northern Calvary general not named Sheridan who is better.

As for the stuff about Southerners being more agrarian and whatnot, I still doubt it since given the much larger population of the north I'd imagine there'd have been just as many Yankee soldiers fresh off the farms and countryside in the Union Army, and it ain't like no Confederate soldiers came from places like Atlanta, Richmond or New Orleans. In any case, all them "deer-killers" didn't exactly do the South any good, in light of the fact that they still suffered equal or even higher losses than the Union in what was ostensibly a defensive war. Even when they weren't engaged in bizarre assaults like at the Battle of Franklin, the Confederates often suffered higher losses. Take Missionary Ridge for example. Confederates were positioned along the top of a mountain ridge with rifle pits and artillery backing them. Totally exposed Union troops charged uphill nonetheless, even without orders at first, and drove the rebs off while having fewer casualties. Fat lot of good deer-killing did there. If Grant ever did say anything along those lines, he was apparently wrong and in any case statistics trump anecdotes, regardless of how involved a person was.

I would say you are correct. If you took all the agrarian soldiers north and south they would be equal. But the % of soldiers north vs south represent the society, so higher % southern agrarian. I am sure you are aware choosing one battle to paint the whole war is unfair, as i could easily do the opposite to "prove" my point. Besides those confederates were that were at Missionary Ridge were from Richmond and New Orleans...lol.

But at Brandy Station, they were able to fight the rebel cavalry to a standstill AND had achieved tactical surprise. That battle made the Union cavalry a force to be reckoned with. Stuart couldn't ride around the Army of the Potomac after that. Union cavalry successfully screened army movements, performed reconnaissance, and threatened rebel supply lines and communications for the rest of the war. That was exactly what good cavalry were supposed to do.

I agree. My point was simply take the whole war especially early, south had advantage it was no contest early. South still had advantage in its great Calvary generals. Especially at raiding in the west and far west. Brandy Station also was a draw even though Stuart was caught by surprise.

Absolutely not. The rebels had their fair share of incompetent leaders.

agreed, it was a big war. But if your saying that the north generals were just as good, and had manpower/economy/industry advantage. Why did the war last so long?.

The "Lost Cause" is a collection of myths that white Southerners latched on to during and after the Civil War. The Confederacy had lost at every conceivable level; its economy was wrecked, it had no political standing, and it had sustained severe manpower losses. Many white Southerners used the Lost Cause to rationalize their defeat and portray themselves as innocent victims. It still persists in some circles today. Those myths perpetuate the notion that the war was fought over states' rights, and that slavery had little or nothing to do with it. They also argue that the Confederacy lost because it was heavily outnumbered and outgunned, but that Southerners had to try for the sake of honor. It gained support during the turn of the century as Civil War veterans began to die and Americans wondered how to commemorate the conflict. It was also modified over the decades to perpetuate white supremacy and domestic terrorism as disgruntled white Southerners took out their frustrations on free blacks and Republicans who got too "uppity." And Southern states had cities of their own. New Orleans, Richmond, Atlanta, etc. Again, the South was more agrarian but the majority of Union citizens still lived in rural areas. Yet another element of Lost Cause hagiography holds that one Southern soldier could whip ten Yankee hirelings, partially because it assumed Northerners were soft city boys. Again, just another excuse so that Southerners could deny any culpability in their defeat.

Thanks for the explanation. Did you got all that from me saying the south was more unified and dedicated to defensing their lands?. I would like to ask about some of what you have said but its just not for this thread. If 1 confederate could whip 10 Yankees, well the south would have won would it not have?. Also I am sorry if I gave the impression the south had no cities, a few have concluded that. i simply meant they were more agrarian.

Mechanization, as in Cyrus McCormick's mechanical reaper and many other inventions that freed up Union manpower. With more efficient tools, more farmers and laborers could enlist. There is no question that the Union states led in innovation, and that included labor-saving devices.

Interesting, how many directly went to war because of these during the war?.

That's the problem with just using one person's memoirs. Other memoirs might highlight the multitude of issues that plagued the Southern war effort.

I agree but my point was he is not some southern propaganda etc etc whatever you guys kept saying.

The average Southerner was not more dedicated. Look at the desertions, riots, and dysfunctional government. There were folks like Jefferson Davis who swore to defend to the last ditch, but most Southerners had had their fill towards the end. Fact is they were a psychologically defeated people. As for Union dedication, most Union supporters thought they were fighting an existential threat. The belief was that if the US was split due to civil war, then it would further fragment and then be dismembered or neutered like every other republic had been. And that would've been the end of the American experiment in self-government. The US was able to consistently mobilize its resources and maintain a sustained war effort from start to finish. More importantly, the US government remained functional while the Confederate government was just gridlocked.

Ok so you wish to say the north was more dedicated that the end of the war defeated south? I can agree. I meant to refer to the start of the war and as a whole. "When you said Look at the desertions, riots, and dysfunctional government" you were referring to the north correct? these happened north and south. Also you say generals even, north soldier more dedicated with all the advantages, how than did the south last so long?.

As for unity, look at West Virginia and smaller breakaways such as the Republic of Winston and Kingdom of Jones. Then you had pro-secession Texans massacring pro-Union Germans in Texas. There was little political unity in the south once economic hardship started to set in.

same examples can be given in the north, a civil war. West Virginia never wanted to succeed, they were more north than south. Maybe in time i will give you journals/newspapers of northern talking of southern dedication at home and in the camps. i will have to try and dig up resources.

Yes, that was an issue. But you are assuming unified political will in the Confederacy when there was none after the war's earliest phases.

when has there ever been in any country?

Possibly. Or Grant's army could have rallied and decisively beaten the rebels somewhere in Ohio. It's useless to speculate on that because these speculative scenarios depend on the assumption that every other event would have played out historically.

agreed,but as i said in op, grant would have been captured or never allowed to command again. I think that would be a sure thing dont you?

[IronBrig4]

I agree. My point was simply take the whole war especially early, south had advantage it was no contest early. South still had advantage in its great Calvary generals. Especially at raiding in the west and far west. Brandy Station also was a draw even though Stuart was caught by surprise.

An advantage in cavalry, but only early in the war. That advantage disappeared after Brandy Station despite it only being a draw.

agreed, it was a big war. But if your saying that the north generals were just as good, and had manpower/economy/industry advantage. Why did the war last so long?

That's a good question. It's because the Union needed to conquer the Confederacy in a series of costly offensive campaigns. The rebels just needed to hold on long enough to win an offensive battle on Union soil. And when that failed, they just needed to bide their time until Union war weariness became too great. Fortunately, the Confederacy's will broke before that happened.

Thanks for the explanation. Did you got all that from me saying the south was more unified and dedicated to defensing their lands?. I would like to ask about some of what you have said but its just not for this thread. If 1 confederate could whip 10 Yankees, well the south would have won would it not have?. Also I am sorry if I gave the impression the south had no cities, a few have concluded that. i simply meant they were more agrarian.

No, but the Lost Cause advocates always claim that Southerners were somehow more skilled or motivated when they really weren't. The Lost Cause perspective also focuses solely on military advantages while ignoring the systemic failures that were endemic in the Confederate government and, to some degree, Southern society. It is true that they were more agrarian, but remember that every Union state was heavily agrarian too.

Interesting, how many directly went to war because of these during the war?

Another good question. I honestly can't say for sure.

I agree but my point was he is not some southern propaganda etc etc whatever you guys kept saying.

Yeah, but sometimes memoirs are wrong.

Ok so you wish to say the north was more dedicated that the end of the war defeated south? I can agree. I meant to refer to the start of the war and as a whole. "When you said Look at the desertions, riots, and dysfunctional government" you were referring to the north correct? these happened north and south. Also you say generals even, north soldier more dedicated with all the advantages, how than did the south last so long?

http://teachinghistory.org/history-c...istorian/23934

The Union Army's desertion rate might have been up to 20%, but the Confederate Army's desertion rate could have been up to 33%. There was just no Southern will to fight on from 1864 onward. There were also riots in Northern cities, but not nearly as many as in Southern cities.

As for government dysfunction, the US government functioned throughout the war. It even held a free and fair election in 1864. It implemented taxes, passed important legislation, and kept all essential services running. The Confederate government could not do the same.

Again, the war dragged on four years because the Union had a much more difficult set of objectives to meet.

same examples can be given in the north, a civil war. West Virginia never wanted to succeed, they were more north than south. Maybe in time i will give you journals/newspapers of northern talking of southern dedication at home and in the camps. i will have to try and dig up resources.

The Union maintained its territorial integrity after May 1861, when the last four states seceded. There were secessionist politicians who still remained within the Union, but their disagreements were mostly just turned into normal Democrat vs. Republican party politics. Now if you want to talk about the Border War in Kansas and Missouri, that was more of a chaotic war within a war.

agreed,but as i said in op, grant would have been captured or never allowed to command again. I think that would be a sure thing dont you?

Perhaps, perhaps not. Defeated Union generals like Butler, Pope, Banks, and McDowell were given extra chances to make up for their mistakes.