The Confederate's Loss

[Fawkes]

I know this isn't exactly Leftist History but it does have to do with guerilla warfare so....

We all know that the Americans defeated the British during the American Revolution because of superb guerilla warfare tactics, and strong feelings of patriotism/nationalism. If we fast-forward 80 years, we reach the American Civil War. The war, as I'm guessing you know, pitted the Southern "Confederate" States against the much better armed and trained Northern "Federal" States. While the Confederates were definitely at a dissadvantage when it came to military power and resources, there was nowhere near as large of a difference in power between the Confederates and the Federalists as there was between the Americans and the British. The question I am asking is, why did the Confederates lose? Sure, almost everything about the U.S.A. was superior to the C.S.A., but why would the Confederates have lost if they had both strong patriotic/nationalistic feelings among their citizens and they used guerilla tactics?

[chimx]

Napoleon Bonaparte's decision not to back the CSA played a big role. One of the primary reasons the colonists defeated Britain was they had massive amounts of French support. Many French soldiers actually died in the American Revolution. The CSA tried furiously to get similar support, sending lots of diplomats to plead with those Frenchies, but to no avail.

[Fawkes]

They had the British support though.

[Martin Blank]

It is something of a myth to say that there were "strong patriotic/nationalistic feelings among their citizens". The population of the CSA was bitterly divided over the question of secession. There were massive pro-Union movements throughout the South. (I recommend reading Marx's articles on the U.S. Civil War for more information.) In fact, there were Union army regiments from every state of the CSA, except South Carolina.

The term "hillbilly" is a product of that reality; a "Hill Billy" was someone who lived in the Appalachins and supported "Billy Yanks", the Union troops. Of course, such a term was a slur among Southerners first. Over time, the historical meaning was lost and it became a general epithet.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Freedom for [email protected] 01, 2006 08:12 pm
They had the British support though.
Not in any meaningful way. The British waited to see if the CSA could do more than defend its territory against a disorganized and poorly-led Union army. By the time that the conditions seemed to be right for Gladstone and the British government to back the CSA, Lincoln had already issued his Emancipation Proclamation. After that, the British did not want to look like they were backing slavery over anti-slavery, so they stayed out for good.

Miles

[Fawkes]

Random question for Com. League: what's the thing along with the hammer and the sickle in your avatar?

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Freedom for [email protected] 01, 2006 09:02 pm
Random question for Com. League: what's the thing along with the hammer and the sickle in your avatar?
A pair of tongs, representing service workers.

Miles

[Janus]

there was nowhere near as large of a difference in power between the Confederates and the Federalists as there was between the Americans and the British
Actually the power difference were greater when you consider the fact that the Union could afford to focus all its resources on winning the war.


and they used guerilla tactics?
The CSA Army didn't use guerrilla tactics due to the military training that the senior officials had undergone as well as the sense of nobility that CSA leaders had. Some paramilitary CSA groups did use guerrilla tactics successfully such as Mosby but it was not implemented on a wide scale. After all would a guerrilla force set up their capital so close to the war front?

[which doctor]

The population difference between the CSA and the Union was huge. The CSA just didn't have a large population to draw conscripts from.

[Seven Stars]

The blockade had a huge effect on their economy, the south was also not as industrialized as the North. They expect the whole to come to their side becuase they had cotton but they underestimated other cotton producing areas such as Egypt. I disagree with Miles, the South had great support from the Southern people. These where people who were loyal to their state first, so what their state did, they did. An exception to this would be the 'hill-billies' in the Appalachins. They used very little guerrilla tactics at the end of the war because most of their leaders, apart from CSA President Jefferson Davis, discouraged it.

[manic expression]

Robert E Lee had the option of starting guerrilla tactics when he was cornered at Appomattox. However, he knew the cause was basically lost and did not wish to see continued bloodshed and destruction. The south was already crippled many times over.

As others pointed out, the south was all about "chivalry" (if you've read "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn", you'll see this). They would've never shown such "cowardice" in battle. In many instances, retreating confederate soldiers ran backwards, so they couldn't receive a wound in the back (a great disgrace).

[chimx]

the korean peninsula had been divided by foreign powers for 5 years. both had seperate governments elected two years before hostilities erupted.

but there are plenty of historians that view the korean war as a continuation of civil strife. see bruce cummings' two volume work called "origins" for what is considered the best researched example of this.