Southern Strategies Why the Confederacy Failed

[@johnmcclish2735]

The South's make them bleed strategy was the only option. And they did well with it. But this is not a Hearts of Iron Game. People seem to forget or the southern authors that rose out of the 1920s thru the 1980s with the Lee is God, If only Jackson, We were so close, War weariness etc etc etc. All forget. that 1. The South is the size of Western Europe aka the Napoleonic Wars. It was going to take time for the North to win if Richmond, Chatanooga, New Orleans and Atlanta do not fall in the 1st 3 months. 2. The industrial power of a 60 mile circle around New York City had greater industrial output than the entire South. 3. Everyone talks of the Draft Riots in late July 63 in the North, yet the "southern" authors and their fellow scholars forget the South already had a draft and suffered bread riots in the spring of 63 in multiple Southern Cities and the one in Richmond was large (3 days and troops were called in). 3. The British had a policy of easy relations with the US. The War of 1812 the US may not have won but the British could not afford to fight a war across the Atlantic with a Continental power of even just the Northern States. The British Army garrison in Canada in 1862 was 18000 men it was less than 6000 pre-1861. Thats a lot of territory to cover with 18000 men. The British were busy elsewhere like India. The British also had no intention of facing a much larger US Navy than in the Wat of 1812 and having to defend all the oceans. Their is also the the techology issue of ironclads armoured ships oceans. A messy time in naval strategy. Besides the Civil war benefited Canada economically (and the British Empire as a whole) and most Canadians were Pro Union or anti slave! 35000-50000 Canadians served in the Union Army 28 earned the Congressional Medal of Honor! Less than 1000 joined the Confederate cause. And then there was the Crimean War hangover effects in both Britain and France. 4. Grant's wins did help overall morale in the North and Vicksburg was a gut punch to the Southern cause. For with Vicksburg falling in 63 the Ohio flows to the Gulf and the economies of OH IN IL MO regained their traditional access to the sea = the port of New Orleans = $$$$. The abolitionists were powerful in PA NY and the and Northeast states. They were not going to break after Antietam. Vicksburg locked in the Midwest for the war. 5. The South's industry, transport and communications were dying. Lack of machinery, industrial level metalworking skilled labor. No horses. Lee culled 25% of his artillery in Dec 63. Why? Because he had no feed for the animals and the men needed to eat something. It also allowed the batteries to get some reinforcements, and those men left over from the disbanded batteries got rolled into the infantry. The rails were worn-down. Can't make new. The rail system was inefficient, not connected, different gauges, and not built for loads, every locomotive lost was well a loss. Can't make Ironclads because you really can't make engines, sorry south. The telegraph was failing also. Turns out a special non-current absorbing non-conductive? clay is used in telegraph pole wire connections and the south could not make replacement clay caps. 6. The quality control on pistols and fuzes was terrible (Gettysburg and the fuze issue everyone?). 7. Lack of educated men. The south was a generation behind in basic education compared to the Northeast by 61. Somethings still have not changed lol. 8. There is concept in war that technology swings in favor of the attacker vs defender throughout history. The rifled musket in partner with entrenchments made the Civil War a bloody affair. Siege warfare takes time. But once you are besieged and have no relief you are done. It took time to corral the south. Anyone who thinks Lee's Army could fight after pulling out of Petersburg needs to do some study. The men were done and fell out on the march everywhere, the animals could not pull the few guns properly = they were done, ammunition was lacking especially for artillery. I am tired rant is over

[@Bigrednumber77]

The Union played to win. The Confederacy played to not lose.

[@evenodd3339]

Bro really put his doctoral thesis in a KZbin comment section

[@johnmcclish2735]

@@evenodd3339 Thanks for the comment. I admit I lost total control. I should have grabbed a couple of ice cream sandwiches, but it was like I just could not stop. I even had a couple more points, but my leg cramped up! Thanks I gave a thumb up lol

[@GeneralJackRipper]

@@johnmcclish2735 Bruh.

[@however-yh2jy]

@@johnmcclish2735 well as KZbin rants go it was actually pretty lucid. Do you feel better now you got it off your chest? 😂

[@geoffreypereira8024]

I always felt the North had something to do with it…

[@Silver77cyn]

Me too, I always thought I was the only one..... 🤔

[@JimmyGaroppoloisGreat]

This Dude does indeed talk about slavery in depth and how this affected the Confederacy's diplomatic recognition! Very enjoyable, accurate, and enlightening lecture....Have no clue what the fools writing in complaining about a lack of mention of slavery were all about 😅😅😅!

[@Silver77cyn]

Probably because the whole war was fought on the issue of slavery.

[@ericfuchs123]

This is exactly the video KZbin recommends ten minutes before bed time to ruin my sleep schedule.

[@Mr.BikeSoldier]

Hey man, at least you’re learning an hour of history and not an hour of instagram reels.

[@arddel]

@@Mr.BikeSoldierGood point, thanks. I needed the motivation 😂

[@wpatrickw2012]

Same here

[@avenaoat]

United Kingdom started the World diversification of the raw cotton production in 1858 before 3 years the Civil War and it was accomplished by 1864! India, Egypt, Ottoman (Turkish) Empire, Breail and other South American countries became raw cotton exporters.

[@Ira88881]

They became exporters because they could charge more selling outside their own countries. It wasn’t like they came close to producing enough for a profit to sell to their native populations. Just like the Irish starved their own people by exporting food stuffs to the English. Their own people couldn’t afford to buy it.

[@plebius]

​​@@Ira88881The Irish didn't starve their own, they were under British rule at the time. They were British (usually English landowners) that shipped food out while the Irish starved. There was a bill put through the British parliament banning the importation of grain to replace the potato which failed due to blight. They believed the Irish had to stand on their own two feet. (While there were laws governing who would inherit lands of the Irish population with it being split into smaller parcels all the time. By the time of the famine, people could only grow the potato to feed themselves and make a small profit to pay for rent, etc. It was reported at the time, people understood this, however a powerful faction in the British parliament bought into that it was gods will. They stopped any help exasperating an already desperate situation. No other crop could do what the potato could. Hence the collapse of the potato crop over multiple years was devastating.) At no point did the Irish starve themselves and export food for more money. It was British landowners, and a law the failure to implement a law to stop food leaving (which was done before and elsewhere at the time). It's an obscene comment blaming the victims for something they had absolutely no control over.

[@avenaoat]

@@Ira88881 The MOST INTERESTING THAT United Kingdom started the raw cotton World diversification before 3 years to 1861 (Civil War)! I think the leaders of the Seccession were not any information about this so the Confederacy started a stop for the cotton export in the beggining of the 1861. The European wool and flax industries were behind the cotton textile industry so the cotton shortage helped them to develop better in the industrial revolution. For me the other interesting the leaders of the Seccession wanted the ETERNAL SLAVERY CIVILISATION, but the American Constitution garanteed a long slavery untill the 3/4 of the states (75%) would have abolished the slavery in the Constitution for the whole USA. I estimate it would have happened about 1900, because a lot of slave system states would have given up the slavery as Delaware with 1.6% slaves and the new Western states as the future Montana or Colorado would have been free states. Only the about 750 000 dead soldiers and civilian (more of them died in illnesses) were the sad price for it.

[@avenaoat]

@@Ira88881 The the USA Northern territory became the World leader wheat exporter and the West-East railroad system could transport wheat to the Eastern port cities as New York + the chanel system too for 1860. The Mc Cormick harvester was good invest, because the (without slaves) Midwestern farmers could harvest the wheat with horses and the help of their own family! After the Crimean war Russia could export wheat too as the Northern USA. That time food problem was bigger when the potetoe fungi ate the potetoe from the Irish people about 1844. The UK government bought corn from USA to Irland, but the Irish people could not use the corn to eat, they did not know the corn. Wheat was few in the World market in 1844 against 1860. The European potetoe got this fungi disaster too however the European people ate mix food not only poteto and milk products so poteto was not for export at all!. To change to cotton was less problem about 1860 the food slurpluss helped the agriculture producers to cultivate cotton instead of food.

[@l4c390]

The Southern King Cotton economy would have collapsed by 1870.

[@ChaplainDaveSparks]

If I had a dollar for every time a country underestimated how long a potential war might last! Not only the Civil War, but also WW1, _Operation Barbarossa,_ up to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine! As Jenny said in the movie “Love Story”, _”the troops will be home by Christmas”._ That’s how much of a cliche it had become.

[@nereanim]

Home by Easter LOL

[@NathanDudani]

WW1 civil war lol

[@briandenison2325]

Add to that the French military was also bogged down in a quagmire in Mexico.

[@however-yh2jy]

With the benefit of hindsight, something like Winfield Scott's Anaconda plan was probably the best strategy for the Union, but the Confederacy's options were very limited. I cant imagine how they could have won.

[@GeneralJackRipper]

@@however-yh2jy They really couldn't in reality, no matter how much people wish they could in fantasy. Their only hope was to not fight the war in the first place.

[@aaronfleming9426]

This video was about the strategic mistakes that led to their defeat. If they had made less of those mistakes, they stood a good chance of the north getting discouraged, voting out the Lincoln administration, and achieving a peace deal in mid-1865. Their options are limited if, like Davis and Lee, you're thinking in terms of a big knockout punch that ends the war in '62 or '63. But a lot of things open up if you make different strategic assumptions.

[@however-yh2jy]

@@aaronfleming9426 So if they had made fewer mistakes they would have had more chance of success? Thanks for that insight. 🙄

[@aaronfleming9426]

@@however-yh2jyNo problem. I'm always glad to share my wisdom.

[@however-yh2jy]

@@aaronfleming9426 😄

[@redruml5872]

The State of NY had a larger GDP than the entire south. As long as the political will to fight existed in the north that war was unwinnable on the battlefield.

[@Eriugena8]

cite? The concept of GDP is from 1934. sounds truthy enough tho, right?

[@aaronfleming9426]

The political will to continue the fight was dangerously low in early-mid 1864. It's not hard to imagine that more efficacious southern strategies might have exhausted that will, and led to Republican defeat at the polls in '64 and a negotiated peace in '65.

[@101Mant]

​@@Eriugena8that doesn't mean you can't calculate it from previous times if you have a reasonable knowledge of the economic output.

[@spiderelbow8226]

@@aaronfleming9426that war was absolutely winnable but putting your capitol right by the other capitol is dumb going on an offensive dumb wasting soldiers as if napoleonic tactics were still valid dumb oh and ignoring the west also pretty dumb

[@jonwebb6644]

To quote Rhett Butler, "All we have is cotton, slaves, and arrogance."

[@randallbriggs256]

It's no wonder that the South had no diplomats and that Southern diplomacy failed. Southern culture honored bullies, not diplomats. Duels, not careful words, were how Southerners settled disagreements. The North had better men for the job. Northern men grew up in a free society, while Southern men grew up in a slave society.

[@thil2894]

I would not go necessarily to culture first honestly, I would prefer to go that the south did not have the governement structure and training environnment for their institution to be staffed with the people they needed for the job. It's like wanting to build an NFL program with your only experiences being in high school volleyball. That's my perception at least.

[@blue-pi2kt]

​@@thil2894Except they inherited much of the same institutional infrastructure and many of its leaders. They chose not to continue many of those lessons and preferred instead to source their appointments from a coiterie of well-heeled upper class gentlemen, who in many cases were either poor tactical or strategic leaders. There is also the ideological question about whether a confederacy founded upon State's rights even believes in fostering a centralised institutional culture necessary to preserve or direct those instruments of Government within the DIME.

[@GeneralJackRipper]

@@blue-pi2kt You touch the very issue here. The Confederate Government did not have nearly as much power and authority as the Federal Govt.

[@IrishCarney]

It's true that duels were much more prevalent in Southern culture, but that very same culture of honor then also incorporated a level of politeness and courtesy that often struck Northerners (who, remember, were fellow Victorians) as overly elaborate, flowery, and even tiresome. The old adage is "an armed society is a polite society", and thus, precisely to avoid duels, Southerners took pains to avoid giving offense. Meanwhile the South viewed "Yankees" as shockingly abrupt, impatient, and blunt -- which by comparison they were, in part because they didn't worry so much about being challenged to a duel.

[@blue-pi2kt]

@@GeneralJackRipper You could argue an equivalence but I see them as very seperate points. The Confederates' issue wasn't a lack of institutions or leadership to guide them, nor outside of the discrepancy in population and industrial might, is there any reason to assume the far less unified Union states would be victorious, especially when their political will was so lacking. The distinct point to be made here is that within the founding of the Confederacy there was an implicit belief that such things were unnecessary - the superior breeding of its Generals and the fighting spirit of the ordinary Southern man was expected to carry the day. Ultimately, that the status quo of the informal Southern aristocratic class should manage such affairs as and when they arise. You can't out-govern that against an equivalent opponent, let alone a better organised and well resourced enemy that the Confederacy found facing them across the Potomac.

[@notabene9804]

For me, the determinism of arguments that "the south was always going to lose" has always been a feature *after* one considers the possibilities for economic attrition; the Southern style of diplomacy was not going to negotiate them a deal after the Cotton Embargo any better than it convinced itself no deal was better than some. This is also to say nothing of how the embargo policy was a reactionary stance taken *after* a blockade of Confederate ports was ordered in April of 61. It's definetely bad strategy to lean into your enemies plan for economic destabilization instead of trying to circumvent it, even if logistically impossible, but it speaks to the *character* of Southern leadership that they believed this to have been an appropriate response.

[@GurkdaBoy]

Yeah this guy definitely seems like he's too fixated on not brushing up against the Lost Cause to acknowledge that the South never really had a chance barring a miracle or the dim hope of foreign intervention (which was only a real possibility for a moment after a Union misstep rather than a Confederate success). For all practical purposes the war was absolutely unwinnable and that's not some romantic Lost Cause outlook, its the outlook of "holy hell they were stupid to try this".

[@burrellbikes4969]

You kinda glossed over what must have been a SERIOUS awakening for the Confederates who assumed their way of life was “superior” to head to Europe and find out that actually, the South is way behind the times.

[@Captainkebbles1392]

It's really funny how Pathetic the south waz

[@slizzysluzzer]

The agrarian nature of the South was the entire point. The Confederate elite lived and breathed as if Don Quixote was an ideal to aspire toward. Industrial bourgeois Europe and industrial bourgeois New York were hand-in-hand in their decaying of old standing slaver-agriculturalist moral and societal traditions in favor of the magnate and the sweatshop. George Fitzhugh went so far as to suggest enslaving the Northern industrial worker as a means of relieving him of his plight. Slavery was not just a matter of simple utilitarian desire but a means by which the Southern aristocracy would cement (in their minds) the very structure of their society for all time. Plantations not just for the imported African but for all, not just as a means of making money but as a godly aspiration to which all men should have strived toward. To their ilk fall the domains of modern luddites, the Dark Enlightenment types, Ted Kaczynski - who still see industrial thinking and the scientific mind as the ferment of all their perceived ills, from feminism to gay rights to sex in the media and the demise of family values. The logical byline has never changed, only the individual people desperate to harken to an ideal of ancient Roman yeoman-latifundia masculinity that never was.

[@clydecessna737]

The Church of England from every pulpit condemned slavery during the War; The weavers in Northern England announced they would rather starve than use Southern Cotton; Thousands of British emigrated and joined the Union Army.

[@johncollorafi257]

The south was not fighting for independence only; for openers it tried to conquer the southwest in the New Mexico campaign and tried to overthrow the Union government through a coup d'etat. (Battles and Leaders of the Civil War, Union and Confederate accounts of the New Mexico campaign; Confederate Operations in Canada and New York by Confederate agent John Headley).

[@Eriugena8]

and the carribean. they just forgot to build their ships Before firing on Sumter.

[@johncollorafi257]

@@Eriugena8 Actually the Confederacy did intend to conquer the Mexico and Central America and form slave states. That was the goal of the Knights of the Golden Circle, the secret society behind secession. Before the war, the south attempted to expand slavery through Filibusters or private wars in Latin America. Documented in David Keehn, Knights of the Golden Circle, a book on Amazon, also Wikipedia, Filibusters (Military).

[@glenrudolphi6238]

Perhaps more properly stated: independence was the only strategic objective of the confederacy. While they did invade new mexico and attempt to seize more land that was an operational goal to gain more strategic resources.

[@beepbop6542]

Clearly their attacks on the Northern government were meant primarily to destabilize and gain any possible advantage in their war for independence. And the Southerners regarded the Southwest as part of the South. The New Mexico territory was slaveholding and it was South of the Missouri Compromise line.

[@IrishCarney]

It's odd that the Confederate diplomats did such a poor job. From this account they sound almost like bumpkins, hollering for ketchup at a Michelin restaurant, being annoyed at the waiters for not speaking English. Wasn't the planter class expensively educated, often taking tours abroad? Didn't their wives eagerly follow fashion trends from Europe? Didn't Southern culture - especially elite culture - place a huge premium on patient politeness, courtesy, and tact - and in fact look down on the North as rushed, blunt, and selfish?

[@Eriugena8]

'wealth does not buy class' -skull and bones movie

[@volodymyrboitchouk]

It's because the southern aristocracy didn't understand business and didn't actually interact with their european peers nearly as much as the northern oligarchs. The north was a mercantile and industrial society whose lites regularly interacted with European industrialist, financiers, and merchants out of necessity, this gave the north many connections with European elites and better insight into their thoughts and interests. The cotton embargo is an excellent sign of the Southern elites comparative lack of understanding. For businessmen reliability is paramount, it's why Indian bankers preferred the east India company as a partner and financed it's efforts. By cutting off cotton exports the south proved itself to be an unreliable business partner which drove the Europeans to look for alternatives. Southern aristocrat's might have played at sophistication, but they really were unworthy country bumpkins compared to their globe trotting northern peers.

[@blondequijote]

Being slow talking when everyone has a million things to get done is not tact. That shit works fine in Mayberry, but the wider world gets crazy and things move fast. Plus diplomats can only negotiate with the resources their country has

[@jasonhuskey961]

These comments are hilarious. Who do you think founded the United States of America? Southerners! George Washington commanded the army that won the war for independence. Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. James Madison is the father of the Constitution. All southerners. Agrarians. But yeah Southerners have no idea how to run a country or do anything.

[@cal4625]

Even if the south had been able to gain independence I'm not sure how long peaceful relations could have been maintained among either the southern states themselves or their northern neighbors. A southern victory would not have changed the abolitionist views in the North and slaves escaping across the border would have continued to be a flash point between the two sections.

[@IrishCarney]

This. I can't get over this huge factor. With only a handful of slave states at most remaining in the Union, and a lot of resentment at the slave states' departure, it would have been much easier for the post-secession Union to pass a constitutional amendment removing the Fugitive Slave Clause from the Constitution. The USA - CSA border was so vast, the South's manpower so limited, and the technology of the time so much weaker, that border could not possibly be effectively sealed like the Berlin Wall or the Korean DMZ, and now the slaves would know that if they made it across they'd literally be safe. To the extent that secession was an effort to protect the long-term viability of slavery, it was hugely counter-productive.

[@aaronfleming9426]

Southern victory would have removed the external threat of forced reunification, and may well have made their internal squabbles worse. For example, it's not hard to imagine Texas reasserting its independence within a few years of a hypothetical Confederate victory....

[@seraphimconcordant]

​@@aaronfleming9426Texas would not have left. South Carolina was the rabble rouser. The union also was dealing with contention with the Mormons and had their own slave states. It would not have survived.

[@curious968]

@@IrishCarney More to the point, an independent south _loses all enforcement of Fugitive Slaves_ . No law of any kind needs to be passed. The would-be independent south, by definition, is outside of the constitution, so anything regarding fugitive slaves might have applied for Kentucky or Maryland slaves, but not for Virginia or Alabama. The south would have to negotiate to get any enforcement and it is highly doubtful the north would have consented. So, slaves going north from the would-be independent south are fully free. Those southerners who came north to recapture escaped slaves and were protected by Dred Scott, would instead be tossed in jail as kidnappers. For instance. In so many respects, the war was a massive own-goal.

[@curious968]

@@seraphimconcordant Balderdash. Slavery was the first, second, and third issue for decades on. If the south goes free, then slavery is much diminished as a source of trouble _in the north_ . Nothing whatever prevents the settlement of California and Oregon or the transcontinental railroad. The Mormons were going to come out about as they did in the actual history. Meanwhile, a great fraction of northern commerce would have barely noticed that the south wasn't in the union, especially as some kind of (now international) trade probably is devised. The real problem is that it is very likely that these two are not natural allies, hostile to each other, and so prone to go to war over and over again. Especially as Europeans would have been delighted to meddle to help it along.

[@mikenazers96]

It's like asking why Japan lost to the US in WW2.

[@aaronfleming9426]

Not really, unless you want to simplify the study of history to the point that it's meaningless.

[@swdierks]

Lee, like Patton, was a great Army commander, but a bad Strategic commander. Lee was to focused on Virginia to be an effective strategic advisor to Davis.

[@frederickthegreatpodcast382]

I don’t think the CSA had to saddle itself to conventional warfare. Once thing that made the Revolution successful was its Fabian tactics and partisan warfare on top of keeping a conventional army. Yes Nathan Bedford Forrest immediately comes to mind, but only on a small scale compared to the Revolution.

[@tinnedtuna8242]

Militarily yes, politically & culturally no. Reason 1 is that the South was about land so they couldn't give it away and still function as a 'State'. Reason 2 is that abolition meant social revolution everywhere blue coated soldiers went as slaves were freed. Reason 3 is that Southern elite mythology could not abide such tactics as it acknowledges an inability to meet the Union on the battlefield. The superiority of Southern manhood was central to their culture and even after being smashed they couldn't abandon it.

[@jliller]

The South lacked enough good horseflesh and adequate supplies to field larger numbers of mounted to troops to operate like Forrest and Morgan. Not for a lack of interest either: many Confederate cavalry regiments had to spend most of the war permanently dismounted. Most Confederate generals (and Jeff Davis) were West Point trained, and their education was more about Napoleon than Washington. Certainly not Francis Marion or Osceola.

[@michaelpalmer4387]

One mistake I've read the Confederacy made was to make the Trans-Mississippi a separate department. Once it was cut off after the fall of Vicksburg, it was essentially cut off from the rest of the Confederacy & was largely unable to affect events elsewhere.

[@Eriugena8]

Great talk!! 👏👏. Some commenters are asking for southern strategies that would have worked. The most obvious one, to me, is to abolish slavery in name, allow blacks to fight in exchange for freedom, to thereby allow a European power to join their side (which they were trying to do from day one), to nullify the union blockade and render it ineffective. after all, the South and USA in general, did this after the civil war and it won the West.

[@FlameQwert]

but that was antithetical to the point of the CSA. That's like saying Nazi Germany could have won if they didn't spend resources massacaring jews, poles, slavs and roma, and integrated them into a pan-european army and political class. It's so ludicrous in the context of the question that it says nothing. "X could have won the war if they did [thing that would never be accepted in X and is completely antithetical to the political identity and formation of X and which would divorce this hypothetical from the real context of the question]" even apart from that, the Union's industrial and manpower advantage and geo-strategic advantages and strategy would have meant any hypothetical manpower gains and slight european support (which is already tenuous even in this hypothetical- this is the 1860s, all the european powers have much bigger issues regarding impending german unification and asian/african colonial jockeying. And in this very video it's explained how king cotton diplomacy totally misread european intentions) would be nullified or rendered small in the context of the larger war

[@Rob_F8F]

That strategy may have worked, but it would have nullified the very reason for secession. An "in name only" emancipation would have been transparently cynical and would have been decried and disavowed by the many, many sincere secessionists.

[@Eriugena8]

@@Rob_F8Fyou get it. I was trying to be tongue-in-cheek, frustated by some of the other comments. Plus i thought my comments were rather original, but after watching the whole talk, Professor Keller covered most everything in a short talk. I'm convinced most early commenters on youtube don't watch the videos. Thank you for clarifying my thoughts!!

[@GeneralJackRipper]

@@Eriugena8 The most obvious one is also the easiest. Just don't fire on Ft Sumter.

[@aaroncabatingan5238]

​​​@@GeneralJackRipperNah, there was always going to be a war whether Fort Sumter got attacked or not. No country in the world wants to be balkanized. The only reason it didn't start earlier was because Lincoln wasn't inaugurated yet.

[@amk4956]

The Midwest had more than enough strength to take the confederacy in the west. The Midwest was too reliant on the Mississippi river for trade thus in no way was Missouri, Arkansas or Louisiana going to be allowed to leave the union. After the Midwest won the west they pivot east and the south was doomed. The east had to just hold out and not get exhausted from the grind. The midwestern motivation was pretty strong

[@ianshaver8954]

The decisive front was the diplomatic front. The North had a better rail network, more people, a larger and more efficient economy, and a stronger navy. The South had slightly better troops and much better generals. In a 1v1 fight the South’s chances of winning were always slim to none. But if they could get the backing of one of the Great Powers of their day, that could change. Their failure to do so was decisive.

[@aaronfleming9426]

There's no evidence that the south had better troops, and objectively speaking they clearly had worse generals, especially in the category of strategic thinkers. The lack of competent generalship contributed far more to defeat than the failure to get foreign support.

[@curious968]

This badly misrepresents history. Whatever the nobility, or lack of same, the southern soldier, until nearly the end, stuck to it. Lee's army was actually days from starvation at the end. Yet, they were still a (largely) cohesive force. Desertion was a trickle and serious even so, but desertion only became a flood when it was obvious they were starting to fight not to win, but to find some undefended food depot. The other thing is that you fall into the common trap of thinking that the armies, as they were in 1861, were the same throughout. When it came to generals, at least, this most certainly wasn't so. A surprising number of generals died on the battlefield. The south couldn't replace theirs and so their generalship declined. The north, by contrast, took a few years, but finally found their good generals, mostly in the west, and those guys eventually came east, replacing dead or incompetent predecessors. They had names like Thomas, Grant, and Sherman. And more. Guys who knew how to actually win. Meanwhile, it wasn't _just_ Stonewall Jackson that died. And wasn't replaced.

[@DP12356]

Fantastic - thank you

[@GeneralJackRipper]

I see Winfield Scott Hancock doesn't rate a mention despite the fact he is, in my opinion, the finest general officer the Union possessed during the Civil War. _During the massive Confederate artillery bombardment that preceded the infantry assault, Hancock was prominent on horseback, reviewing and encouraging his troops. When one of his subordinates protested, "General, the corps commander ought not to risk his life that way," Hancock is said to have replied, "There are times when a corps commander's life does not count."_ _Helped from his horse by aides, and with a tourniquet applied to stanch the bleeding, he removed the saddle nail himself and, mistaking its source, remarked wryly, "They must be hard up for ammunition when they throw such shot as that."_

[@johnarnold7984]

Why would Winfield Scott Hancock rate a mention in a discussion on Southern Strategies and why they failed? He was a fine corps commander, but is irrelevant to the topic being discussed.

[@GeneralJackRipper]

@@johnarnold7984 Perhaps you missed the audience question section? That happens when you don't bother watching the whole video but feel compelled to comment on it anyway.

[@armandosalinas5946]

The South lacked diplomacy, no Ben Franklin

[@mkvenner2]

And the relationship between Britain and France was very different at the time

[@JHouston62]

One thing which might've worked was sending agents to pose as Canadian raiders sacking northern towns and vice versa, the raids wouldn't mean much but the potential for causing the already tense relationship between Britain and the Union to possibly erupt into war or at least divert northern attention might have worked

[@bradmartin9114]

O

[@GeneralJackRipper]

They did do that. St. Albans Raid

[@Eriugena8]

lots of that kind of thing,...spies, sabotage, during the war.

[@FlameQwert]

@@GeneralJackRipper yup, and it's interesting to note this did far more to anger canadians against the confederacy for trying to draw them into a war they didnt want

[@GeneralJackRipper]

@@FlameQwert Public relations was still a relatively new concept at the time. 🤣

[@Thomas-wn7cl]

Amen to the dangers and destruction of printing money to cover budget shortfall.

[@JohnLandau-rg4gh]

I believe that by the 1860s the British and French had found althernative sources of cotton in Egyptand India. Please correct me if I am wrong about this.

[@jonathanziegler8126]

You are not.

[@nomdeguerre7265]

The one solid operational cooperation with the national government was (unfortunately for the Confederacy) with R.E. Lee, who had a fatally flawed strategic vision based on obsolete tactical approaches, inappropriate to the economic and logistic conditions prevailing in the conflict. "What if Stuart had accompanied Ewell?..." What if Lee had efficiently deployed his available cavalry in his order of battle for the campaign? That was the main failing, above an beyond anything Stuart did. It's important to remember that Lee was in command, he decided what cavalry was assigned where and he commanded Stuart.

[@mcfail3450]

Well said. I'll add that Lee also approved everything Stuart did ahead of time. They both failed to realize Stuart riding around a moving army would take longer than a stationary one.

[@curious968]

I think Gettysburg in _some_ form was simply inevitable if the north didn't despair and give up. There's all this woulda shoulda lost cause claptrap that we all fall for to some degree, but the longer the war lasted, the more likely it would have been that some kind of Gettysburg was going to take place out east. Heck, Antietam nearly was Gettysburg even though some southerners want to count it as a win. Nobody could really fight that perfect a war and the south didn't. Came close, but that's not enough and never was going to be enough. It was never going to be enough as long as the north was willing to field an army.

[@klumhru]

Enjoyed the exploration of the global diplomacy implications. The US civil war of the 1860s is of little consequence to the world, and therefore on the face of it only a minor curiosity when studying world history. That section however had some interesting connotations.

[@joeryanstrialbook2005]

Because they were outmanned and outgunned. Duh.

[@TulsaDem]

You mean the way we beat Vietnam?

[@joeryanstrialbook2005]

@@TulsaDem You must have been a child when Nam came. The Vietnamese were not "outmanned and outgunned." They controlled the jungle from beginning to end, and the jungle made the function of an _army_ operating in the field superfluous. The difference in the reality of war is the difference between the Union rapidly gaining control of the length of the Mississippi and the Mekong River which we never controlled. We fought on the ground in units of companies, not with an _army._

[@TulsaDem]

@@joeryanstrialbook2005 I just meant that having huge resources in money, men and weapons as the United States did in Vietnam does not always translate into victory in hostile territory, The jungle was sort of a 5th column for the Vietnamese. Why didn't they figure out they were going to be outgunned and outmanned and out-resourced before the war instead of after the war? I feel that the North needed many more soldiers to win because they were trying to conquer a huge territory, going up against a hostile citizenship that aided the Southern army whenever they could. There were long supply lines that had to be protected, the territory the North won had to be garrisoned, and the South was able to entrench on many battles because they could use interior lines and they knew the territory better.

[@joeryanstrialbook2005]

@@TulsaDem "Why didn't they figure out they were going to be outgunned and outmanned and out-resourced before the war instead of after the war?" Indeed. That is the question serious students must ponder. The answer is, first the _white people_ of the seceded States took their "States" out of the Union because they recognized the white people of the adhering states meant to keep the Africans bottled up in the South, while the rantings of the Radicals among them threatened to cause a war between the races to explode. Feeling this the _people_ decided to go forward on their own. Second, the politicians leading the people calculated that the people of the adhering states would not join together to make war on the seceded States; a calculation that seemed sound at the time. The politicians did not foresee that Lincoln would instigate the war by tricking the Confederate Government to fire on Sumter which Lincoln gambled would inflame the young Americans to the point they would answer his call for an army to invade the seceded States. Third, the politicians naively expected that Great Britain's demand for cotton would induce her Government to support the Confederacy. The hard reality emerged on April 6, 1862, when, after both sides had spent a year preparing armies to operate in the field, the Union produced _two_ armies to the Confederacy's _one_ at the Battle of Shiloh. The outcome from that point on was certain. In a war of attrition the Confederate States could not free themselves of the Union.

[@jonathanziegler8126]

"Grant had an easier time than his predecessors..."? Come on man!

[@GeneralJackRipper]

@@jonathanziegler8126 He did. By the time he took command as Lt General, Lincoln had already realized he should gtfo of the way and let him do the job. Grant had to deal with almost no political pressure that the previous commander in chiefs had to suffer through.

[@aaronfleming9426]

In one sense, he did have an easier time than his predecessors in the east. On the hand, he had an easier time because he had been crushing the rebellion in the west. This left the rebellion weaker, and gave Lincoln greater confidence in Grant.

[@ianshaver8954]

He had an easier time because he was much less incompetent.

[@aaroncabatingan5238]

Its relatively easy for him because unlike previous commanders, he actually have experience leading large armies and since he shows that he can achieve results, Lincoln doesn't have to worry about him pulling a McLellan.

[@aaroncabatingan5238]

​@@GeneralJackRipperTo be fair to Lincoln, he used to have McLellan as the commander of the Army of the Potomac. I don't blame him for wanting to micromanage his armies if I used to have that guy as my officer.

[@frankcozin7322]

I would have liked to hear some Southern strategies that may have been successful. Maybe they are in the book. The south was outmanned, outgunned and out-supplied from day one and it got progressively worse as the war went on even in spite of many southern victories.

[@Ira88881]

I’m no Confederate, but they were only a few battles away from winning.

[@djackmanson]

Guerrilla war from the start could potentially have made the war drag on long enough that the people of the North lost their will to fight and elected a government that ended the war Of course that would have meant abandoning Napoleonic modes of thought and elitism so it's pretty unlikely

[@GeneralJackRipper]

The Confederates never lost a battle due to lack of supplies. They were outmanned and outgunned, but the guy in charge of war procurement for the Confederacy worked a logistical miracle the likes of which the world has never seen since. All the way up until the last few days before Appomattox the Confederate Army had ready access to stockpiles of supplies, in fact the last battle Lee's Army fought was while they were marching to receive fresh supplies that had just been shipped from the Carolinas.

[@jeffbybee5207]

If the south had started building Albemarle type two gun ironclads from the start and had maybe 8 at neworleans and 4 at memphis when the union attacked they might have been able to keep the missippie open to the west to get food from the transmissippie. The charleston could easily have had 4 smaller ironclads and if savannah had even two ironclads when the atlanta went out they might have had a chance aginst the wehawkin and nahant insteed of the deep draft ship stuck on a mudband and could not even aim a cannon at the union ships

[@jeffbybee5207]

Further 8 boats could have been built at wilmingon not only could they have savaged the blockade and helped defend the river side of fort fisher but the fate of css north carolina eaten by shipworms and css Raleigh grounding on the bar and breaking her back might not have happened if they could sail upstream to kill the worms with fresh water. Further three ironclads on the Apalachicola river would have possable broken the blockade there. Mobil built a pair of Albemarle type and also two bigger ntennesse classes ond damaged on launching and never finished plus the css nashville the first two had bad engines but if Buchanan had 6 ironclads at the battle of Mobile bay aug 64,espically if they had spar torpedos with good engines farrigate would have needed much more than 4 monitors.

[@teamrecon2685]

Why? Logistics.

[@JohnLandau-rg4gh]

My consultation of the article on "Cotten" in the Wikipedia confirmed my suspicion that Britain coprd with the Confederacy's semi-embargo on cotton shipments to Englandt by increasing its imports of cotton from India and Egypt. France and other European countries also increased their imports from these two countries.

[@NathanDudani]

@@JohnLandau-rg4gh wIkIpEdIa

[@RobertPentangelo]

The view of the British Government was very short sighted-the Civil war was about the last time it could have delayed the US from becoming a continental and then a world power. If it was going to help the confereacy it had to do so in 1861 or 1862 where the Royal Navy could have broken the union blockcade. I do not think Lincoln could have refused to negotiate after that.

[@steveglynn1006]

I must respectfully disagree with the speaker here, in his beginning assertion that the goal of the Confederacy was independence, and everything else was noise. No, Sir, it was not, and you do your subject no favors by the assumption. The goal of the Confederacy was the protection and expansion of the system of American Chattel Slavery (and the associated social order of White Christian Supremacy). The South *sought Independence* to further THAT goal because of the prevailing belief that they would, otherwise, at some point in the future, possibly have to do an honest days work. This is not a subject of honest debate; it is fact. It is spelled out by the Confederates themselves, in their own Articles of Secession, in multiple states, multiple times.

[@footballnick2]

Have you ever considered the fact that, you know, they wanted independence in order to maintain their social order and economic system? Is this really that hard to comprehend?

[@steveglynn1006]

@@footballnick2 ...Slavery... The social order and economic system.. of slavery. Owning human beings as property, and engaging in unrestricted exploitation, kidnapping, torture, and rape. And patting themselves on the back as good God-Fearin' Christian Folk for their barbarity. Yes. I comprehend that perfectly well. It's why I oppose it. Why don't you?

[@johncollorafi257]

Secession was primarily for slavery expansion. Within the Union the South attempted to expand slavery through Filibusters (private wars); the Wikipedia entry for Military Filibusters is extremely detailed. At secession, secessionists seized arsenals throughout the South and attempted to conquer the southwest in the New Mexico campaign, to be followed by slavery expansion in Central America. See Battles and Leaders of the Civil War for Union and Confederate accounts of the New Mexico campaign, and David Keehn, Knights of the Golden Circle, for information about the real purposes of secession.

[@blondequijote]

Turns out ppl too lazy to work don't make the best soldiers.

[@lukewarme9121]

The MAJORITY of those that fought in The South were NOT slaveowners.

[@lostcat9lives322]

According to the latest set of elections, the South did win. It just took them awhile.

[@beepbop6542]

Trump is a New York financier and industrialist lol, he's the picture of the North's war advantages

[@useyourbrain1539]

Simply could not support a long war.

[@alexandervanscoy2518]

RIP to your mother.

[@marklandwehr7604]

I'm from northern Kentucky.My community came over from strasburg They had been involved in many wars It was the general opinion The south never had a chance The? Community, where I'm from?Use the wire for our suspension bridge Built by john robleings To surround our town It was electrified We had teletype from the fox holes on the river front To the guns up on Jefferson hill No one could cross the ohio without getting Obliterated As a result our town remains till today Are community knew that the war was doomed for the south They were landlocked And did not accept that Due to their ignorance Of the facts They were never gonna have kingdoms in the south Because that was nonsense

[@CalledTurnAGundam]

Falling asleep to this (around 30 minutes in) I for some reason thought I was listening to Chris Hansen taking. I guess the voice and intentions were just similar enough.

[@JohnLandau-rg4gh]

It is interesting that you totally ignore in your analysis which side had a "just cause." The Southern leaders immediately repudiated their solemning made oaths to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution, which many of them had taken only a year before secession. They also were avowedly fighting to preserve and protect the institution of slavery, which many people in both Europe and North America had come to perceive as unethical and oppresive by 1861. Concerning the morality on the Union side,it is relevant that the Union side only began to make steady progress after President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. This transformed what had been originally only a war to save the Union into a crusade to free four million enslaved people. Thgis was an ideal that greatly strenghen the will to victory on the Union side. To put the matter bluntly, the Union side fought for ethical goals while the Confederacy fought for unethical ones, primarily the preservation of an unethical legal-social institution. While this does not determine the outcome of every war, most wars are one by the side that has moral rectitude on its side.

[@FJVII]

36:10 it gets mention in the form of discussion of the Emancipation Proclamation and before this a mention of UK public disdain for the immorality of slavery.

[@GeneralJackRipper]

Secession has never been proven to be illegal, so your entire rant can just be ignored.

[@paulbukowiecki1213]

​@@GeneralJackRipperit was proven illegal by force lol deal with it rip

[@jacksonsorth762]

This isn’t about what side is “just” he’s presenting a military analysis about the strategic decisions made by the south. He’s at the Army War College obviously he’s going to talk about the military and not political or moral aspect of the war.

[@paulbukowiecki1213]

@@GeneralJackRipper they did attack fort Sumter so how just it was null and void afterwards.

[@danbrooks6780]

What's with him using the phrase "Lost Cause" to refer to some idea that the south had no chance of winning (even calling this an "old canard"), instead of its well-known historiographical meaning of noble confederate intentions/states-rights-not-slavery etc???

[@aaronfleming9426]

Because the idea that the south had no chance of winning is a significant part of the "Lost Cause". The noble confederate intentions, states rights, etc., are part of the package, but the very term "Lost Cause" refers to the notion that the war was unwinnable from the beginning.

[@GurkdaBoy]

@@aaronfleming9426I think being so afraid of the Lost Cause really leads to a lot of mental busywork. The war was basically unwinnable and that isn't some noble intention IMO, its part and parcel of how stupid it was to try in the first place. Picking a fight you can't win isn't honorable, its dumb.

[@GeneralJackRipper]

I'm tired of people blaming Bragg. The guy really was a top notch strategist, he was just a vicious and unlikable guy who couldn't get his subordinates to do what he told them to do. Never mind the fact that early in the war Bragg launched one of the most successful and wide ranging offensives the Confederacy ever undertook, and it was because of that campaign he rose to Army command. Not saying there weren't better options (*cough) Forrest (*cough) but Bragg tends to catch a lot of flack for failures that really were the result of incompetence of his subordinates.

[@williammorris584]

I have some sympathy for this defense of Bragg, but he was truly dismal in battle. Part of this may have to do with his episcopal appanage, but he did otherwise have some good subordinates.

[@SalaciousBCrumb-md3lk]

You will be alright.

[@GeneralJackRipper]

@@williammorris584 I disagree. Bragg spent the majority of his career saddled with Bishop Polk, who really was the worst General the Confederates had, and Polk was a very popular political appointee who spent all of his spare time trying to get Bragg fired.

[@aaronfleming9426]

Agreed about Bragg getting too much blame. Besides his personality, of course, I think the Confederacy did him and itself an awful disservice by viewing his Heartland Campaign as a failure. Certainly it didn't achieve all his goals, but it lasted a lot longer and achieved a lot more than Lee's bungling Maryland campaign. What if the CSA had trumpeted Bragg as a successful general? How might that have affected the morale and effectiveness of his army? And how might Murfreesboro have turned out if Bragg had been given another division or two? I must disagree about Forrest being a better army commander. He was certainly brilliant with an independent, mobile, division-sized cavalry force, but he did not demonstrate the ability to cooperate with, much less lead, a field army.

[@GeneralJackRipper]

@@aaronfleming9426 I draw my conclusion from Jefferson Davis, who after the war said of Forrest, _"If I had known what a man we had in Forrest I would have given him an army at the earliest possible date."_ The problem Forrest had was that no one really knew who he was, and didn't understand the fighting qualities of a true craftsman and genius. He had no friends in government, no influence among the West Point elitists, and despite the fact his record is one of incredible success against all odds in all situations, he still never got the recognition he deserved because he didn't trumpet his own accomplishments. He was simply out to do a job, and do it the best way possible. He's a latter-day Belisarius in my opinion.

[@kennethhammond4028]

CC lost the numbers war. Less of of war winning materials and people and land did it.

[@dong4617]

A drunk and a lunatic defeated the South. Lincoln himself had major depressive disorder.

[@aaronfleming9426]

Still parroting the old saw about Grant being a drunk, lol

[@aaroncabatingan5238]

Are you emphasizing how trash the Traitor States were? This is America in the 19th century, everybody abuses alcohol. There's a reason why a lot of people in the early 20th century thought it was a good idea to ban alcohol completely. And Lincoln having depressive disorder doesn't make him a lunatic.

[@TulsaDem]

The actual problem was the lack of schooling in the South. The people were unable to add and subtract. They couldn’t figure out that the North had more men and resources than they had. Public schools , which taught addition and subtraction might have enabled them see they couldn’t win before they even started.

[@aaronfleming9426]

@@TulsaDem Nice snark, but it's also the old lost cause trope. The decision makers were well educated, but they had lousy strategies. Hence this interesting video.

[@chri6393]

Cause it was evil

[@JamesBarry-j7m]

They failed because they were evil

[@stevenmqcueen7576]

The average age of the audience seems to about 70. Sad.

[@JohnLandau-rg4gh]

I am shocked and disappointed that you totally ignore the moralityt of the objectives of both sides in the war. Onthe Union side, preservation of a Constitution that all of the states, including the secessionist states, had solemnly sworn to uphold, and thet was a solemn compact between all the states, including the Southern ones. Eventually, the freedom of four million enslaved people became a second objectives. The Confederates, by way of contrast, were fighting to preserve an unethical institution and to break their solemn vows to "preserve, protect, and defend" the United States constituion, the compact that they had voluntarily made with the States. In the civil war as in most wars, the side with right and justice on its side won.

[@GeneralJackRipper]

_"And how many battalions does the Sun God command?"_

[@khronostheavenger8923]

They're talking about military theory, not morality. Furthermore, morality is irrelevant to success in war. There have been plenty of moral wars that ended in defeat for the "good guys".

[@aaronfleming9426]

Perhaps you would have been less disappointed if you had paid attention to the title of the video. That would have been a good clue about the content.

[@ADavidJohnson]

The morality and objectives aspect does show up in the diplomacy. The slavers were openly representing an odious cause that made it much harder to get support even from countries that might otherwise have liked to see the USA split and weakened.

[@beepbop6542]

The Constitution was a voluntarily signed document. Why could it not be voluntarily withdrawn?

[@shiloh6519]

Imagine the irish regements in the confedeate armies if England joined the frey.

[@GeneralJackRipper]

There were Irish Regiments in the Confederate Army. The Irish fought on both sides.

[@OkaniJMCA]

Too many ads.

[@donwald3436]

let's all be surprised that we failed by worshipping black culture lol.

[@TulsaDem]

huh?

[@Captainkebbles1392]

Well I mean..they weren't exactly good soldiers or smart lol they got whooped by the US of A and they were lucky they lasted as long as they did USA USA USA USA Silly little rebels thinking they stood a chance

[@timwalter6257]

To mention the current inflation rate, September 2024, of 2.4% with an editorial comment and a sideways aside that draws any comparison to the South's inflation rate, is such an egregious flaunting of a personal opinion that it calls into question the rest of your talk.

[@GeneralJackRipper]

@@timwalter6257 What is the definition of the word 'cumulative'?

[@aaronfleming9426]

Nonsense. It's clearly an allusion to the fact that many people are unhappy about the *last 5 years of inflation*. The facts that many people a. don't have much historical perspective b. inflation began in part because of Trump's covid policies and c. inflation is currently getting better, have little or nothing to do with the *perception* in the public that inflation has been very high.

[@normzehms3548]

What about January 6?

[@khronostheavenger8923]

... What?

[@lukewarme9121]

Stolen elections have consequences.

[@johnmcclish2735]

The Union had the same opsies as the South. This is the same rehash with new title.

[@GeneralJackRipper]

Shelby Foote once said the Union fought with one hand behind it's back, and I believe him.

[@RobotechLegos]

Why the hell does it matter? The south lost Its over

[@aaronfleming9426]

If you're not interested in history, I'd recommend avoiding history videos...

[@beepbop6542]

Yes, of course. No traditionalist government fighting with outdated weapons and little industry will ever defeat the United States, lmao. Except in Afghanistan...

[@nickyman5557]

they had like three hairstyles back then huh?

[@JohnLandau-rg4gh]

I notice that you eventually acknowledge the moral authority of the Emancipation Proclamation as a powerful instrument of the Union for winning the war. But only very late in your presentation.

[@andrewfleenor7459]

So how far through the presentation had you gotten by the time you wrote your first two rants about his neglect of the moral angle?

[@GeneralJackRipper]

@@andrewfleenor7459 I'm going to take a guess and say it was about four minutes.

[@aaronfleming9426]

Did you notice that this video was not about the moral aspect of the war, but rather - as the title suggested - southern strategies and why the Confederacy failed?

[@carloshortuvia5988]

Long live Dixie!