The American Civil War

[alfred russel]

I think the last census showed that the North had 27 million people, the South had 9 million. Something like 4 million of those were slaves. So the relevant military population was around 27 million to 5 million. Plus the North inherited the navy, the basics of the army, and was the wealthier portion of the country.

France and Prussia were roughly at parity, the North was dramatically superior. 4 and a half years to make it 100 or so miles to Richmond is not something I would have expected.

Army?  What army?  There were something like 15,000 men in the US Army before the war.  Again if it was easy then Grant should have won easily since he clearly had no problem driving hundreds of miles in the West.

And France and Prussia were not on parity.  The Prussians and their allies were able to mobilize their men so well they heavily outnumbered the French in every victory they won.  Certainly no more than the Federals typically outnumbered the Confederates in the battles they fought.

This may be why I should have kept my mouth shut, I thought the French and Prussians were at rough parity at Sedan. 

When Grant started his campaign, he was in Richmond less than a year later. And that was using a style of fighting that was criticized at the time for being "grind it out."

[jimmy olsen]

To the best of my knowledge It was Maclellan that committed  his army piecemeal at antietam. I merely point out that Burnside was competent, rather than incompetent. You can still be competent and have a poor performance.

I'm not claiming that Burnside was a good general, I merely agree with his own assessment that corps command was his level of competence.

I was only addressing that particular effort by Burnside.  Ultimately the story of Antietam was that McClellan had his chance at eternal glory and fumbled the ball.  The North would never have a better chance to win the war in one battle.

Would slavery have been so easily abolished if the war had ended there though?

[Valmy]

Would slavery have been so easily abolished if the war had ended there though?

I think so because ultimately even if Lee's army had been destroyed the South was not going to just surrender.  The North still would have had to occupy the place and defeat the remaining Confederate armies.

[Viking]

To the best of my knowledge It was Maclellan that committed  his army piecemeal at antietam. I merely point out that Burnside was competent, rather than incompetent. You can still be competent and have a poor performance.

I'm not claiming that Burnside was a good general, I merely agree with his own assessment that corps command was his level of competence.

I was only addressing that particular effort by Burnside.  Ultimately the story of Antietam was that McClellan had his chance at eternal glory and fumbled the ball.  The North would never have a better chance to win the war in one battle.

I think the Union could have won the war at First Bull Run

Burnside didn't attack until 10:00 when the order from Maclellan came. By the A.P. Hill had just moved into position. Burnside did bungle the attack. That all said, had Mac ordered the attack at 05:30 then the war would have been won in a day.

[Valmy]

When Grant started his campaign, he was in Richmond less than a year later. And that was using a style of fighting that was criticized at the time for being "grind it out."

Well that is true.  A good general commanding a good army would have taken Richmond in less than a year.  But Meade was a competent general and his campaigns in Virginia following Gettysburg were embarrassing clusterfucks where he failed to either gain much ground or even engage Lee in battle.

[11B4V]

What's you alls opinion on Rhea's and Pfanz's books?

[MadImmortalMan]

He did perform well in north carolina early in the war and was competent at antietam.

I don't know enough to assess Burnside or contribute much here, but isn't there some controversy whether Burnside was competent at Antietam or grossly incompetent?

The confederate point of view seemed to be that the way he tried to take the bridge his bridge was grossly incompetent as the river was really a stream that could be forded basically anywhere he wanted, and having visited the battlefield I find it hard to disagree.

Yeah, but the bank opposite is a big steep hill, and the only path up it is the road to the bridge. He'd have to go some distance on either side to find a crossing that didn't have impossible terrain on the other side. Not that that's impossible.


Add me to the list who have been there. 

[Razgovory]

I think the Union could have won the war at First Bull Run

Burnside didn't attack until 10:00 when the order from Maclellan came. By the A.P. Hill had just moved into position. Burnside did bungle the attack. That all said, had Mac ordered the attack at 05:30 then the war would have been won in a day.

I think this is possible as well.  If the Federal Army beat the Confederacy at Bull Run it may have knocked the wind out of the Southerners.  They may have been able to march unopposed to Richmond.  Along with generous terms from Lincoln (which would be likely), the South might have accepted defeat having satisfied their honor on the battlefield.  Unfortunately slavery would have been allowed to continue and the political ramifications of that are difficult to calculate.  More blood would likely be spilled in the future.

[Viking]

I think the Union could have won the war at First Bull Run

Burnside didn't attack until 10:00 when the order from Maclellan came. By the A.P. Hill had just moved into position. Burnside did bungle the attack. That all said, had Mac ordered the attack at 05:30 then the war would have been won in a day.

I think this is possible as well.  If the Federal Army beat the Confederacy at Bull Run it may have knocked the wind out of the Southerners.  They may have been able to march unopposed to Richmond.  Along with generous terms from Lincoln (which would be likely), the South might have accepted defeat having satisfied their honor on the battlefield.  Unfortunately slavery would have been allowed to continue and the political ramifications of that are difficult to calculate.  More blood would likely be spilled in the future.

A Quick Union Victory in 1861 would in my view more likely result in a quick abolition of slavery. No longer needing to placate the border states after the quick victory and a republican congress refusing to seat pro-slavery secessionists abolition would have happened quickly as part of the terms of surrender. I agree, however, that this abolition would have been performed on southern terms, though on a northern timetable. More than likely there would be compensation and/or time limited indentured service of some kind. Slavery was dead as soon as the south took up arms.

[MadImmortalMan]

A Quick Union Victory in 1861 would in my view more likely result in a quick abolition of slavery. No longer needing to placate the border states after the quick victory and a republican congress refusing to seat pro-slavery secessionists abolition would have happened quickly as part of the terms of surrender. I agree, however, that this abolition would have been performed on southern terms, though on a northern timetable. More than likely there would be compensation and/or time limited indentured service of some kind. Slavery was dead as soon as the south took up arms.

Slavery was dead before the South took up arms. It was only a matter of time. Quick victory might have had the effect of dragging out the status quo though, IMO.

[Drakken]

A Quick Union Victory in 1861 would in my view more likely result in a quick abolition of slavery. No longer needing to placate the border states after the quick victory and a republican congress refusing to seat pro-slavery secessionists abolition would have happened quickly as part of the terms of surrender. I agree, however, that this abolition would have been performed on southern terms, though on a northern timetable. More than likely there would be compensation and/or time limited indentured service of some kind. Slavery was dead as soon as the south took up arms.

Not all Slave States were in the CSA (Maryland and Delaware (nominally)), and not all Southern Slave Slaves were secessionists (Tennessee, although there was a parallel Convention in Bowling Green).

[Valmy]

not all Southern Slave Slaves were secessionists

Well Missouri was considered Southern at the time was was not secessionist.  The Appalachian region was notoriously pro-Union as well.  Also immigrant regions such as the Texas Hill Country and North Carolina Coast.

[Razgovory]

not all Southern Slave Slaves were secessionists

Well Missouri was considered Southern at the time was was not secessionist.  The Appalachian region was notoriously pro-Union as well.  Also immigrant regions such as the Texas Hill Country and North Carolina Coast.

Parts of it were.  The governor favored it secession and was in communication with the Southern governments in the early part of he war.  He was apparently trying to get heavy artillery to dislodge Federal forces from Jefferson Barracks in St. Louis.  This plan failed when the local Union commander imprisoned the pro-confederate State Guard in the area around St. Louis.  He then marched on Jefferson City and defeated a militia formed by the Governor near Boonville.  The governor fled south to Neosho and and formed a rump legislature to vote on succession.  However he didn't have quorum, so it probably didn't carry the force of law.

[dps]

2.1 million served in the Union military during the war, roughly 900k in the Confederate.

Is that everybody or just the regular army?  I know the Union had tons of local reserve troops in the border states that would only be used if fighting occured in their area.

I don't think it counts non-federalized militias, but it certainly includes more than the regular army, which stayed at about 15,000.  The vast majority of the Union forces were in what was called the US Volunteers, not the US Army.

[alfred russel]

A Quick Union Victory in 1861 would in my view more likely result in a quick abolition of slavery. No longer needing to placate the border states after the quick victory and a republican congress refusing to seat pro-slavery secessionists abolition would have happened quickly as part of the terms of surrender. I agree, however, that this abolition would have been performed on southern terms, though on a northern timetable. More than likely there would be compensation and/or time limited indentured service of some kind. Slavery was dead as soon as the south took up arms.

The problem with that is you would need a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery. The war ending before the emancipation proclamation and the occupation of the north would make ending slavery quite difficult.

An Amendment requires ratification from 3/4 of states, and I doubt a generous post war settlement would consider the south outside of the union. Even if you did place them outside the union, there were 24 union states, and you would need 18 to ratify. 4 had slavery and were unlikely to do so. I don't know if you could have kept 3 others from defecting considering (especially in the west) you had states with strong southern sympathies and there would have been the prospect of additional violence.