The Root Cause of the Confederacy's Defeat Was...

[Anaxagoras]

If you had to choose one, which of the following would you declare to be the root cause of the defeat of the Confederacy in the American Civil War?

1. Military. Superior Union numbers, actual battlefield defeats and gradual military attrition over four years, ect.

2. Industrial. Superior Union war production and shipbuilding and a more efficient transportation network, ect.

3. Financial. Superior Union financial institutions. Lack of hard cash and inflation in the Confederacy, ect.

4. Political. Political infighting and disunity among the Confederates, ect.

5. Moral. Union holding the moral high ground on account of fighting against slavery, ect.

6. Something else.

[Mike Stearns]

No all of the above?

[Anaxagoras]

Originally Posted by Mike Stearns

No all of the above?

"If you had to choose one..."

[Xgentis]

I voted something else since i could not choose all the options.

[Anaxagoras]

18 votes and not a single one for "Military". How interesting.

[Zuvarq]

Originally Posted by Anaxagoras

18 votes and not a single one for "Military". How interesting.

Because the Union had a lot of bad generals. Or okay generals that decided not to pursue the enemy after winning.

Also because most of the Union's militarial advantages were a result of industry.

[LSCatilina]

All of that. Probably other ones like logistic, economics and demographics.

[Brady Kj]

I would guess a big problem was competence, but I suppose one of your options might be bigger.

[Delta Force]

How about bad lobbyists? The Confederate agents in Europe did an excellent job lining up deals for armaments and warships, but they could have done a better job in the political department. They don't need to be recognized, but having Parliament and Napoleon III let the deals go through would have given the CSA parity or even supremacy over the USN in oceangoing ironclads, as well as helped reduce deficiencies in rifles and artillery.

The oceangoing ironclad was an even bigger "Dreadnought moment" that the launching of the Dreadnought because it made all previous warships not only obsolete but utterly incapable of harming them (pre-dreadnoughts at least stood a chance against dreadnoughts in enough numbers, a whole squadron of wooden ships is just going to get sunk). If the CSN had a few oceangoing ironclads it would have negated the Union's superiority in wooden warships carrying out the blockade and forced the Union to devote more resources to the oceangoing USN.

[QuoProQuid]

It's lack of real industrial capacity undermined the Confederacy's nascent financial sector and prevented it from building an effective army. This lead to significant political in-fighting.

[wolf_brother]

Interesting how slavery itself isn't on your list..

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by wolf_brother

Interesting how slavery itself isn't on your list..

How would you define slavery itself as a problem? As in, what made it a bad thing instead of a way of freeing up white men for the army?

Not trying to dispute your statement, just trying to see what you're arguing here.

[Delta Force]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

How would you define slavery itself as a problem? As in, what made it a bad thing instead of a way of freeing up white men for the army?

Not trying to dispute your statement, just trying to see what you're arguing here.

Well, you do not really want to arm slaves and you also have to make sure they do not escape, so they are another area you have to defend.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Delta Force

Well, you do not really want to arm slaves and you also have to make sure they do not escape, so they are another area you have to defend.

Yeah, but there is the advantage of them as a free (cash-wise, which is a major problem for the Confederacy) labor source you can use.

I'm not saying that it was a net gain - I think the pros and cons are of roughly equal importance until the US starts recruiting blacks.

[CandyDragon]

Overwhelming Union numbers, industrial production, commanders, and the southern leadership. Most factors, really. I can't pinpoint an exact cause...

[wolf_brother]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

How would you define slavery itself as a problem? As in, what made it a bad thing instead of a way of freeing up white men for the army?

Not trying to dispute your statement, just trying to see what you're arguing here.

The CSA couldn't use its full manpower fighting the enemy, instead it had to use troops in, essentially, occupation duty to prevent the threat of, perceived or not, a mass slave uprising.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by wolf_brother

The CSA couldn't use its full manpower fighting the enemy, instead it had to use troops in, essentially, occupation duty to prevent the threat of, perceived or not, a mass slave uprising.

I'm not sure how many units were genuinely tied down dealing with the possibility of a slave uprising.

Speaking from my research on North Carolina and Virginia (which may not be representative, I'm just offering it as an example) in May of 1863, there are two main problems tying down troops that could have gone to reinforce Lee.

1) Unionists, mostly an issue in North Carolina . . .

2) And actual Union armies (4th and 7th Corps on the Virginia Peninsula and 8th Corps threatening western Virginia, or 18th Corps in North Carolina).

I don't remember possible slave uprisings being mentioned at all.

I wouldn't say it was never a concern, but I'd like to see some elaboration if possible, as it would be interesting to see more on how many of the units that look "idle" are really doing something important.

[Athelstane]

I suggest that the categories are a poor division; and that we ought to have the ability to pick more than one.

Ultimately the formula for Union victory was pretty simple: Much greater manpower (4 to 1) married to vastly greater industrial capacity, backed by sufficient public will to stay the course. Confederate reliance on the advantage of fighting on the defense, on interior lines, and higher mobilization of its white manpower just wasn't enough to offset all that.

In reality the South was not "built" to sustain a modern industrial war. It was not just that she lacked sufficient industry and infrastructure; it was also that a class-based cash crop society was too fragile to sustain such a war, especially if any of its territory was occupied. So many people in these threads focus on the South's need to focus more on a war of attrition to wear down the North's will to win. Setting aside the fact that (as Gary Gallagher has pointed out) Southern culture was simply not adapted to the mentality needed to carry out such a strategy, the simple fact is that Southern society, especially that based on black chattel slavery, simply could not survive Union occupation where it struck. The slaves would be run off, the plantations burned down, and no resources to fall back on to rebuild it. To the extent that the South was like Sparta, it shared its strengths and its fragility.

For all that, the South came closer to victory than it had any right to reasonably hope for, thanks to inept Union military leadership.

[Zmflavius]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the manpower ratio was more 2:1 than 4:1? Still a crippling disadvantage, but not as bad as 4:1.

[robertp6165]

Originally Posted by wolf_brother

The CSA couldn't use its full manpower fighting the enemy, instead it had to use troops in, essentially, occupation duty to prevent the threat of, perceived or not, a mass slave uprising.

That's a myth. The Confederacy actually devoted very little of its manpower to holding down the slave population during the war, and those that were used tended to be old men beyond military age and boys too young to make effective soldiers anyway.

EDIT: The whole "the Confederates lived in fear of slave revolts" thing is pretty easily disproven, BTW. If you examine the debates which finally led to the passage of a law allowing the recruitment of slaves as soldiers for the Confederacy, the one argument that seems never to have been made by opponents of the measure was "OMG, if we give them guns, they'll turn them on us!" or "OMG, they'll take those guns and murder our defenseless women and children!" If the fear of slave revolt was really so prevalent as some today suggest, that should have been THE major plank in the opposition's platform against the measure. Oddly enough, the prevailing attitude in the South was that, on the whole, the slaves could, in fact, be trusted. And, as it turned out, they were right. There were no slave revolts during the war, despite large areas of the South being powerless to prevent them because the men were all away fighting the war.

Sadly, the store of good will between the races which should have been built up by this failed to materialize. If only it had, how different the history of this country might have been.