Discipline in American Civil War Armies

[The Brain]

Just seems that there was nothing, aside from a change in politics in the North, that could lead to the South winning.

Had Trump's ancestors arrived in America by the ACW?

[viper37]

Well the fact that taking Richmond was in fact quite difficult reflects one of the other big strengths of the south: military technology and tactics of the time greatly favored the defense over the offense.

More reason for the South to think they should be able to win.
What the Southern leaders underestimated is the level of commitment, sacrifice and willingness to accept pain the North was prepared to bring to win the conflict, as well as the impact of a fully-mobilized industrial economy on the ability to wage war, something that never had been seen before.

There was a fantastic piece on Robert E. Lee in the Washington Post not so long ago:
Link

[viper37]

Just seems that there was nothing, aside from a change in politics in the North, that could lead to the South winning.

Had Trump's ancestors arrived in America by the ACW?

his grandpa was the first to set footh in America, sometime prior to WWI.

[Valmy]

Just seems that there was nothing, aside from a change in politics in the North, that could lead to the South winning. 

As far as the first option remember that Washington DC was cut off and mostly defenseless for several critical weeks in 1861 thanks to efforts of secessionist elements in Maryland. The South just could have walked right in, but Jefferson Davis held back thinking it was important for political reasons to make the North appear the aggressor. That is a pretty big what-if.

Secondly they failed completely to execute the second option. The Southern defenses crumbled early on in several key disasters: Pea Ridge, Mills Springs, and Fort Henry and Donelson. Huge amounts of Southern territory were occupied just months into the conflict. The only thing that stopped a complete meltdown was the fact that the infrastructure in that part of the South was so bad the North eventually stretched their supply lines to the limit and had to stop, which allowed the South to regroup.

If either, or both, of those things had gone differently I think we are talking about an entirely different war.

[Barrister]

Just seems that there was nothing, aside from a change in politics in the North, that could lead to the South winning.

Had Trump's ancestors arrived in America by the ACW?

his grandpa was the first to set footh in America, sometime prior to WWI.

Grandpa Trump earned his fortune in the Klondike Gold Rush. 

[alfred russel]

Well the fact that taking Richmond was in fact quite difficult reflects one of the other big strengths of the south: military technology and tactics of the time greatly favored the defense over the offense.

I'm not sure that this is really the case. First, it was not the experience in European wars of the same era--Prussia was quite aggressive and rolled up everyone. Second, the South had too much territory to defend. It couldn't create hardpoints and simply wait for the North to attack them for a few reasons: the North could simply walk around them, or concentrate its forces to attack the hardpoint with overwhelming numbers.

Napoleon commented that the only logical conclusion of a purely defensive campaign is surrender. The South had the issue that Lincoln was not going to give up. If it wanted to play defense, that meant it needed to survive until early 1865 without the war clearly turning against it (with Lincoln losing reelection and the newly elected president inheriting a war still in doubt and deciding to quit rather than press the affair). I just don't see how this happens with a defensive mindset - with 4 years the North was going to be on the advance.

[alfred russel]

To hijack the rifle hijack and bring us right back to the original thread topic, in the first few years of the war it was not universal for even prominent units to have rifles. This is from Wikipedia but it is something I had read elsewhere about the stonewall brigade:

The Stonewall Brigade was initially armed with weapons captured from the arsenal at Harpers Ferry; its regiments went to First Bull Run carrying a wide range of muskets from Model 1816/1822 muskets converted to percussion to modern Model 1855 rifles to VMI cadet muskets (a Model 1842 musket downsized to .58 caliber). Company K of the 33rd Virginia, the Shenandoah Sharpshooters, had the misfortune of getting flintlock muskets. In September, Jackson received a request from Virginia governor John Letcher asking for the return of the VMI muskets (carried primarily by Company H of the 4th Virginia, known as the "Rockbridge Grays"). Jackson replied back that the muskets could not be returned until better weapons became available....

n the fall of 1861, Jackson was promoted to division command and reassigned to the Shenandoah Valley and Potomac River area, where they overwintered. During this time, a trickle of better weapons reached the Stonewall Brigade as Confederate agents began purchasing rifles from Europe. However, the brigade still had a large number of smoothbore muskets until the Gettysburg Campaign, by which time the majority of its men had .58 caliber rifles.

Whatever the merits of rifles versus muskets, I think there will be general agreement that the Stonewall Brigade was an effective combat unit--I'd guess because of the discipline enforced on them more than offset their less than ideal armament.

[Valmy]

I'm not sure that this is really the case. First, it was not the experience in European wars of the same era--Prussia was quite aggressive and rolled up everyone.

Those battles were all bloodbaths, hardly "rolling up" anybody.

Second, the South had too much territory to defend. It couldn't create hardpoints and simply wait for the North to attack them for a few reasons: the North could simply walk around them, or concentrate its forces to attack the hardpoint with overwhelming numbers.

No it couldn't. That is ridiculous. The North had to take out the strongpoints. They had supply lines to worry about. Those long borders and lots of territory meant the northern forces had to set up isolated garrisons and left themselves open to raiding and counter attacks all the time.

Napoleon commented that the only logical conclusion of a purely defensive campaign is surrender. The South had the issue that Lincoln was not going to give up. If it wanted to play defense, that meant it needed to survive until early 1865 without the war clearly turning against it (with Lincoln losing reelection and the newly elected president inheriting a war still in doubt and deciding to quit rather than press the affair). I just don't see how this happens with a defensive mindset - with 4 years the North was going to be on the advance.

Well right, it needed to be an active defense. Northern Armies needed to be defeated Saratoga style at some point. They never managed to do it.

[Malthus]

That the North would get sick of the carnage would have been a completely reasonable assumption - only no-one at the time the war started predicted in advance that the battles to come would result in such carnage!

[Duque de Bragança]

Well the fact that taking Richmond was in fact quite difficult reflects one of the other big strengths of the south: military technology and tactics of the time greatly favored the defense over the offense.

I'm not sure that this is really the case. First, it was not the experience in European wars of the same era--Prussia was quite aggressive and rolled up everyone.

Depends on the European Wars you are looking at. The long-lasting sieges of the Crimean War, the other first modern war, could have provided valuable lessons for the ACW.
And the Prussian Wars, are bloodier than you think, as Valmy pointed out.

[Razgovory]

Wad up a piece of paper, and throw it as hard as you can.  Then throw an otherwise identical piece of paper as hard as you can.  Your arm speed didn't change, but the wadded up paper goes further.

I didn't think of that.

[alfred russel]

Valmy, the Prussians defeated Austria in less than 2 months. The Franco Prussian War was more complicated but the Battle of Sedan was less than 3 months into the war and effectively determined the outcome. Both probably had more on paper parity than the North v. South. Both involved less dead than the ACW - but the point I was making was not that the Prussians avoided casualties--but that decisive offensive battles were possible with the era's technology. The point being -- while I grant that it seems very difficult to pacify an area as massive as the Confederacy--the Eastern theatre was quite constrained and I'm not seeing why marching into Richmond was necessarily more difficult than Paris.

[alfred russel]

No it couldn't. That is ridiculous. The North had to take out the strongpoints. They had supply lines to worry about. Those long borders and lots of territory meant the northern forces had to set up isolated garrisons and left themselves open to raiding and counter attacks all the time.

Sorry, I was quite unclear. Yes the North had to take out some strongpoints, set up garrisons, etc. However, the South couldn't set up true strong points everywhere. An example of the outcome when they tried was the loss of New Orleans--the North was pressing from the North, the South diverted troops to meet this challenge, and that left them open to the loss of their largest city with only minimal resistance.

Also, if we are arguing that the technology of the period made offensive tactics unattractive--I'd point out that an active defense like you mention is going to involve offensive tactics as well.

[Valmy]

Valmy, the Prussians defeated Austria in less than 2 months. The Franco Prussian War was more complicated but the Battle of Sedan was less than 3 months into the war and effectively determined the outcome. Both probably had more on paper parity than the North v. South. Both involved less dead than the ACW - but the point I was making was not that the Prussians avoided casualties--but that decisive offensive battles were possible with the era's technology. The point being -- while I grant that it seems very difficult to pacify an area as massive as the Confederacy--the Eastern theatre was quite constrained and I'm not seeing why marching into Richmond was necessarily more difficult than Paris.

In the case of Austria their political position was too fragile to fight a modern war at the time. In the case of France, well they just fucked up. They thought they were the power that supposed to be attacking but they were heavily outnumbered. Also neither the North or the South had anything like the Prussian mobilization system or rail network.

But even with that total disaster the Prussians had to besiege Paris for months against mostly amateurs.

But I concede that if the North had von Moltke and an enormous well trained army ready to go they would probably have been able to take Richmond in a few weeks.

[alfred russel]

In the case of Austria their political position was too fragile to fight a modern war at the time. In the case of France, well they just fucked up. They thought they were the power that supposed to be attacking but they were heavily outnumbered. Also neither the North or the South had anything like the Prussian mobilization system or rail network.

But even with that total disaster the Prussians had to besiege Paris for months against mostly amateurs.

But I concede that if the North had von Moltke and an enormous well trained army ready to go they would probably have been able to take Richmond in a few weeks.

Northern railways were not inferior to Prussia.

It is wikipedia, but there were almost 29,000 miles in 1860 in the US - a majority of which was in the east and new england.

The british had about 13,500 miles in 1870. I know that britain but i couldn't quickly find germany on google and i wouldn't expect germany to exceed britain by much (if at all) in the era (not to mention the problem that germany wasn't actually unified).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport_in_the_United_States

https://www.britannica.com/topic/British-Railways

The north certainly wasn't Prussia, but the south certainly wasn't france. As you mention, the south was arming guys with pikes and if you want to attribute a weak political situation to austria...what would you say about the south?