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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[EWHM]

The real root cause, IMO, was that the Confederates failed to understand their victory conditions for the war.
The confederates win only by exhausting the will of the North to continue prosecuting the war, and win a decisive victory if they manage to fillibuster the war away entirely. If they'd had that as their grand strategy to begin with, they probably could have won the war in that sense.

[LSCatilina]

Originally Posted by EWHM

The real root cause, IMO, was that the Confederates failed to understand their victory conditions for the war.
The confederates win only by exhausting the will of the North to continue prosecuting the war, and win a decisive victory if they manage to fillibuster the war away entirely. If they'd had that as their grand strategy to begin with, they probably could have won the war in that sense.

In another words, hoping to win by a strategy of attrition works only when you have MORE ressources than the other side, not ten times less.

[Iori]

All of the Above.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by LSCatilina

In another words, hoping to win by a strategy of attrition works only when you have MORE ressources than the other side, not ten times less.

The gap was narrower than ten to one, but still. The Confederacy's ratio of resources to territory sucked.

But I'm voting for political. Better leadership would have been able to effectively use the limited resources available, and the political aspects of this hurt the military aspects.

[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.