Why did the Confederates lose to the Union?

Answer 1

So far almost everyone has simply echoed some form of the old "Lost Cause" mythology that Robert E Lee believed -- the idea that, with the North's superior manpower and resources, the Confederacy's cause was doomed from the start.

Sorry, but this is nonesense. (Not only that, but if it was so clear, then why were the Southern leaders so utterly foolish as to make the attempt?!)

Yes, these resources were NECESSARY to Union victory, but they were by no means SUFFICIENT causes -- and it take both of these to win.

Note that much larger nations have OFTEN lost to smaller ones with far less resources, e.g., in the American Revolution!

One reason it is mistaken to simply compare numbers and resources when evaluating such a struggle is that what each needs to ACCOMPLISH is different! It requires much less to DEFEND one's own territory (the South), for instance, then for an external force to conquer all of it (the North's challenge). The latter requires extended supply lines, forces able to HOLD territory once it is taken. And if the smaller, weaker power gains the support of OTHER powers --as the American colonies did during the Revolution-- it is a VERY doable task.

Also note that there were MANY turning points during the Civil War -- right up to the summer of 1864 when Grant was bogged down and Lincoln fully expected to LOSE his re-election bid-- when a key Union defeat or failure would have almost certainly ended the Union's will to continue and the Confederacy would have triumphed.

The key is found, I believe, in one line of the review by James McPherson listed below. He writes:

"Numbers and resources do not prevail in war without the will and skill to use them."

And the key is that, in the end, the Union managed to come up with the will and skill, despite many early missteps. Much of this was due to sheer determination and the understanding of several key PEOPLE of what needed to happen, then sticking with it until they succeeded. Among them certainly:

#1) Abraham Lincoln, because he would NOT give up, but also because of his ability to learn from mistakes, and because he had an overall understanding of the strategy needed even when generals like McClellan did not. But there's more than that. A critical part was his personnel decisions, to ultimately find people who could and would DO what he was looking for.

Note too that once he found the right people he made good USE of thier abilities. Lincoln's skillful management of his talented by ambitious Cabinet (many of whom had been his RIVALS for the Republican nomination and who for a time considered themselves his superiors) brought out the best in THEM, which was key to a succesful effort. [Dorris Kearns Goodwin's recent *Team of Rivals* is a brilliant exploration of this.]

So #2) strong Cabinet members who did their jobs effectively, perhaps most importantly
a) Stanton, Secretary of War, who mobilized resources (after Cameron, Lincoln's first Sec. of War, bungled badly)
b) Chase, Secretary of the Treasury -- keeping finances in order to fight a war is no small task! (cf. the horrible inflation and economic collapse in the Confederacy)

#3) key generals -- esp. Grant and Sherman, who recognized when others refused to, that the only chance of success was by "total war" -- including forcing the South to defend MANY points at the same time, and breaking down the whole 'support structure' of the South's war effort. (Thus they made effective USE of their superior manpower and supplies, where ealier generals had not.) There are numerous examples of how they managed to break with conventional wisdom, without which the North could never have succeeded.

To some extent we could contrast those who held parallel posts in the South --esp. Lincoln's strengths (physically, politically, etc) vs. Davis-- but all-in-all I think who led the NORTH was a bigger key. (Incidentally, those who attribute the Southern loss to all sorts of INTERNAL rebellion vs. the draft, etc., etc. somehow seem to miss the fact that the North had many of the same problems to deal with, and often more intensely! So this explanation won't take us very far.)


Good critique of the traditional explanations, but not a very satisfactory substitute:
http://personal.tcu.edu/~SWOODWORTH/Beringer-WTSLTCW.htm

A nice three-part overview of the various issues.. a fuller explanation of the cause-S of the Southern loss:
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/american_reconstruction/109662
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/american_reconstruction/110131
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/american_reconstruction/110842

Excellent review of several Civil War books on this question --
"Could the South have Won?" by James McPherson
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/688281/posts

Answer 2

Because they couldn't get foreign involvement like the British, (who feared an armed Irish rabble backed by the Union), and they didn't have the manufacturing capacity (compare teh industrial might of the USA in WW1 and WW2 compared to today and you understand why we need our high tech arsenal to win a war quickly). Most importantly, by sheer numbers and low effectiveness of the common infantry rifle of the day (which wins more warfare than anything else-the common soldier on foot with a gun) they were outnumbered by Union troops. Although a major crippling factor was that President Davis was powerless, states controlled their own armies and supplies, their surpluses sat in storage while other states went lacking, so lack of unified command gave the Union a big advantage. Despite this the sheer brilliance of Lee and determination of the South nearly succeeded, had any of the other factors been different, they arguably could have won. Luck plays a hand that those crowing about victory forget, like the ones who always want a truce or peace at any price like to forget they wanted to throw in the towel, they are always there but historians tend to forget that.

Answer 3

Man...talk about an essay question...this won't be the best answer, but it'll be one piece of the puzzle: author Shelby Foote, a great southern gentleman who understood the Civil War/War Between the States better than most, concluded that "the North could have won that war with one hand tied behind its back." In terms of numbers of potential soldiers, resources, and industrial base, the Union was just a whole lot bigger.

Answer 4

Less manpower than the Union. The Union was able to constantly draw new conscripts from a larger population.

The Union had a far more vast and developed system of manufactoring for weapons and supplies.

The issue of slavery prevented official foreign intervention on behalf of the Confederacy.

The Union had political leadership with more will to pursue the issue.

Answer 5

the Union had better industrial capacity (they could produce more goods necessary for the making of war: uniforms, ammunition, food stores, cannons, ships, etc.),and better transportation (many more miles of railroad in the North than in the South), and as a result stayed more economically stable through the war. because of the absense of men to work the agrarian economy of the south, and the property destroyed by war, the south's economy was hit really hard during the war and so they could not afford to buy what they could not produce. As far as leadership was concerned they were both very strong.

Answer 6

the north "out-numbered" the south populationwise and this became even more apparent when newly landed "immigrants" were pressed immediately into the armies of the north to gain earlier consideration for citizenship!!enlist and become a citizen!!the north also had the advantage of swift-moving rivers for the early "industrial revolution";this in turn lead to "mass production" of armaments,inter-changeable parts for weapons,pistols and rifles,co-ordination or steam and water-wheeled power in industrial output!!the south ,undoubtedly had better horseflesh and supremely better calvary officers with great skill and "elan".moral conviction and "innate certitude" of purpose was not short on either side!the south was primarily "agrarian" and there were more wagons than trainlines as far as mobilization of troops and armies being brought to bear was concerned!!the "juggernaut " of foreign immigration might be the biggest cause of the south's demise!!courage was never the shortcoming of "the army of virginia"!!robert e. lee in his capacity as the head of west point had trained and oversaw the officers of both armies;north and south and when they all fought together against mexico and took vera cruz and chapultepec heights and the "pedegral" outside of mexico city!!we must remember in the insanity of war in one battle at gettysburg 50,000 americans were killed in a matter lasting only a few days!!in twenty years in vietnam that many were lost!!!we could sure use all of those fine men today and all of the progeny that they would have produced!!!but wars are fought primarily to "reduce the population of young men;not to save and apply them to a useful and worthwhile purpose;as always has been the case since xerxesand darius,alexander and phillip of macedonia!!

Answer 7

Although they almost won, the rebs had a lack of men and material, lack of support from foreign powers, lack of a strong navy to overcome the Union blockade, lack of industry to match the north, especially in armaments. The north won by attrition.

Answer 8

They lost because of industry. The south was agriculturally based while the north began to start with the industrial revolution. The north also gets a lot colder. Sounds simple but weather put an end to wars and invasions. When Geronimo was exiled to Florida, all of his fellow warriors died from the heat/humidity.

Answer 9

Despite an inital showing of superiority in horsemanship and the advantage of defending mostly their home ground the cause was doomed because of lack of resources including the limited number of soldiers the south could muster and a lack of industrial complexes. Coupled with lack of money there was little chance the south could win a war lasting four years.

Answer 10

One main reason--technology. In the north, there were many factories and railroads to produce and ship goods, including weapons. The railroads also let them get soldiers to the south faster. And the north had shipping yards which both let them ship more goods from other countries and blockage the south to keep them from getting more goods, or from selling the goods they had. It wasn't a matter of bravery, training, or dedication, it was a matter of the south not having the resources they needed to win.