Was the American Civil War inevitible?

[viper37]

In the sense that the South could hardly replace any losses, sure.  But that being the case it's unavoidable unless they just give up.

I don't think the South was required to fight the war by launching crazy assaults all the time.  What they needed were battles like Fredericksburg where they maneuvered the North into making the crazy assaults.  You know, like what Joe Johnston was always trying to do.

Could the South really afford a long war?  by the end of the war, they were in short supply of men, guns, ammos, cannons?  Defensive battles costs less in men, but they still require something to shoot with.  If their industry and supply lines can't cope with it, because there's a lack of cohesive structures behind, in a such a modern war, you're pretty fucked.
And defense is good when you're facing a risk-adverse opponent.  The moment Grant took over, he kept pushing and pushing and pushing.

Gettysburg was certainly a turning point, in that the loss inflicted were so heavy that it accelerated the South's downfall, but I can't imagine the South ever winning their independance by fighting strictly defensive battles.  Their hope of victory would lie with Northern support from the anti-war crowd.  If the was is going nowhere, there could have been political pressure on Lincoln to end the war, but how realistic is that?

[Razgovory]

There were a few other factors.  Not having Jackson anymore/not taking Culp's Hill on Day 1, lack of effective recon, and defensive terrain to name some.

Jackson was late and bungled a lot during the Seven Days campaign.  But details like that don't matter when your opponent is being psychologically beaten.

Yeah, Jackson was terrible in the Seven Days, but I was talking about Gettsyburg.

He wasn't very helpful in Gettysburg either.

[derspiess]

He wasn't very helpful in Gettysburg either.

Which was kind of my point. Mr. Foote.

[Valmy]

There were a few other factors.  Not having Jackson anymore/not taking Culp's Hill on Day 1, lack of effective recon, and defensive terrain to name some.

Jackson was late and bungled a lot during the Seven Days campaign.  But details like that don't matter when your opponent is being psychologically beaten.

Yeah, Jackson was terrible in the Seven Days, but I was talking about Gettsyburg. 

Well you were saying one of the reasons Gettysburg went the way it did was because Jackson was not there, but he was perfectly capable of making serious errors even when he was there.  But when the North is going to run away while winning those mistakes do not count for much.

[Valmy]

I always figured that the nature of the Civil War, outdated tactics and newer weapons, ensured a heavier casualty toll in the ACW, rather than the Generals being overly harsh about casualties. 

And strangely, we saw more of the same in WW1.  It's as if the higher officers still tought themselves in the Napoleonic era.

Military thinkers studying the American Civil War and the Franco Prussian War came to the very opposite conclusions one might think they would.  That the attack and initiative was paramount.  They would point out that as soon as the South stopped being aggressive they lost the war.

[Razgovory]

I have always heard that technology had jumped ahead of tactics in the civil war, but were casualties rates higher then in the Napoleonic wars?  I think something that is often overlooked is that nobody on either side of the war had commanded armies of that size.  Before the war Grant and McClellan were captains.  Lee and Bragg were colonels.  Jackson was a major.  A lot of commanders on both sides had never served in the military.

[Valmy]

I have always heard that technology had jumped ahead of tactics in the civil war, but were casualties rates higher then in the Napoleonic wars?

But for different reasons.  In the Napoleonic Wars there was a ton of hand-to-hand combat and pursuit losses which were pretty rare in the American Civil War and World War I.  At least that is my impression.

[lustindarkness]

3 pages and no one has mentioned the effect of vampires fighting for the south and Lincoln's silver dipped axe? 

[Razgovory]

I have always heard that technology had jumped ahead of tactics in the civil war, but were casualties rates higher then in the Napoleonic wars?

But for different reasons.  In the Napoleonic Wars there was a ton of hand-to-hand combat and pursuit losses which were pretty rare in the American Civil War and World War I.  At least that is my impression.

That seems like tactics kind of thing.

[Admiral Yi]

But for different reasons.  In the Napoleonic Wars there was a ton of hand-to-hand combat and pursuit losses which were pretty rare in the American Civil War and World War I.  At least that is my impression.

I've read that the instances of bayonets actually crossing were very minimal, if not nonexistant during the Napoleonic wars.

[Martim Silva]

To quote the late historian Shelby Foote:

"Before the war, it was said "the United States are." Grammatically, it was spoken that way and thought of as a collection of independent states. And after the war, it was always "the United States is," as we say today without being self-conscious at all. And that sums up what the war accomplished. It made us an "is."

Unfortunately, Shelby was wrong.

A study of Supreme Court case opinions does show that the use of "is" increased during the Civil War to around 50% of the time, but then dropped off again after the war.  The real shift is usage to "is" occurs around 1900 and it is far more dramatic than the Civil War era shift.

Stop to think a bit.

Use if "is" increased during the Civil War - means the issue became relevant then.

Then it really shifts in court case opinions in 1900. Would not the year 1900 be about the time when the generation that was born right after the war/were just kids during it was now being old enough to give court opinions?

And pre-1900 opinions would have been done by people who were already adults during the War, so more resistant to change, right?

I'd say that, contrary to your claim, the study actually proves Shelby right, rather than wrong - the generation that grew after the War saw the US as "is" and not "are".

And strangely, we saw more of the same in WW1.  It's as if the higher officers still tought themselves in the Napoleonic era.

Europe had a different experience than the US, due to the Seven Weeks' War of 1866 and the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71. Both were very fast, due to both shorter distances, far greater railroad capacity, technological developments and the superiority of Prussia having a REAL General Staff to coordinate things.

So, Europeans dismissed the American experience (and paid little attention to the Russo-Japanese War, as it involved an Asian power), and saw it as atypical.

As a result, both in the ACW as in WWI, the starting doctrines of both sides were heavily inspired in the Napoleonic period/1870s experience, with generals expecting grandiose manouvers and decisive battles, rather than what ended up happening.

In reality, the increase in firepower had very much put the edge on the defending side, and whithout elements that allowed this advantage to be offset (like utter incompetence by one side, as was the case in the Franco-Prussian war, or the massive edge given by the Prussian Needle Gun vs. slow-loading Austrian Muskets in the Seven Weeks' War), every even engagement would turn into a bloodbath.

[derspiess]

Well you were saying one of the reasons Gettysburg went the way it did was because Jackson was not there, but he was perfectly capable of making serious errors even when he was there.  But when the North is going to run away while winning those mistakes do not count for much.

Sure there was a chance of him making mistakes, like with any general.  But Jackson started racking up an impressive win streak up until the time he got whacked by his own guys.  Who do you think would have done a better job in charge of Third Corps at Gettysburg-- Jackson or AP Hill?  Do you think Jackson would have hesitated to take Culps Hill on Day 1?

[PDH]

Sure there was a chance of him making mistakes, like with any general.  But Jackson started racking up an impressive win streak up until the time he got whacked by his own guys.  Who do you think would have done a better job in charge of Third Corps at Gettysburg-- Jackson or AP Hill?  Do you think Jackson would have hesitated to take Culps Hill on Day 1?

Depends on if he was in one of his "stupid" phases.  He was capable of worse than Hill when he was at his low points.

[PDH]

Really, though, D.H. Hill should have been brought back to the ANV after Jackson was killed by friendly fire.

[Admiral Yi]

Sure there was a chance of him making mistakes, like with any general.  But Jackson started racking up an impressive win streak up until the time he got whacked by his own guys.  Who do you think would have done a better job in charge of Third Corps at Gettysburg-- Jackson or AP Hill?  Do you think Jackson would have hesitated to take Culps Hill on Day 1?

Jackson's reputation is built more on his operational skill than his tactical abilities.