why wasn't the south able to win the civil war?

Question

why wasn't the south able to win the civil war?

Answer 1

1 - greater population in the North. Lincoln suggested to "do the math", even if the North suffered far greater casualties, they would still prevail.



2 - Greater industrial strength in the North. A greater Navy able to conduct a blockade of Southern ports, better weapons, better equipment.



3 - A superior strategy. The strategy of Lincoln was to suppress the rebellion and re-unite the Union. The strategy of Davis was that the North "leave us alone", and somehow get the North to sue for peace. Lincoln's strategy required a great will to continue the fight, which he had in spite of great losses. Davis strategy could not succeed except that Lincoln lose his will. Davis strategy manifested itself in two defeats in Northern territory (Antietam and Gettysburg), in which the South inflicted greater casualties, but did not have the ability to sustain the fight.



4 - Lack of support from anywhere else in the world. The South made many attempts to be recognized by other nations, particularly in Europe, but was not successful.



5 - The evil of slavery. The world opinion was turning against this evil, and the South simply could not sustain a culture based upon it. It had festered in the US for eighty years, and could only be decided by war.

Answer 2

The south won the first part of the civil war with motivated troops and strong leadership.



Basically, the south lost because it was poor. Soldiers weren't making any money, some had to return home to raise crops so their families wouldn't starve. The southern soldiers were a dedicated but rag tag militia, short on food, ammunition, even shoes.



The north was rich in comparison, and was fully industrialized. Sure, they were lead by idiots for a while, but they wore uniforms, were properly shod, and had new military innovations like the Springfield rifle, repeating rifle, and Gatling gun. They could pay and replace missing soldiers. They could afford a long, drawn out war and knew that the south could not.



Industry, organization and money will beat out a poor, determined enemy nearly any time. The only exception would be for occupying forces wherein guerrilla tactics are king. IE the American Revolution or the current struggle in Iraq.



For a fun alternate history of the Civil War - wherein the injection of the AK-47 rifle allows the south to win - try Harry Turtledoves "The Guns of the South." Awesome novel.

Answer 3

Too many turning points and pure luck in certain instances. For example, what if T Jackson still led the 2nd Corps at Gettysburg, would he have taken the high ground on the first day as many historians believe? What if Govenor Warren didn't spot an unguarded Little Round Top on the 2nd day, what if Chamberlain didn't order a bayonet charge also at Little Round Top. What if Lee ordered an attack around the Union left into the supply wagons and artillery park, like Longstreet had wanted, instead of sending 12,000 Virginians up Cemetery Hill.



And these 'what ifs' were only at Gettysburg, what about some of the other more pivitol battles. In the long run, the north's industrial might was bound to carry the day (or the war), but the South did have chances to win the war.

Answer 4

No i do no longer think of so. The South replaced into an agricultural economic gadget powered via slave hard paintings. Even in the process the time of the Civil war, the North had an excellent larger inhabitants and production base. The North replaced into already attracting immigrants from Europe. The South could no longer have "gained" the war lots... through fact the North usual peace words and known the South as a separate united states of america. The North might grow to be an commercial potential; its inhabitants increasing through immigration. With tensions interior the disputed Western territories, i might think of war might have had erupted back. the end result could have been not on time yet nonetheless the comparable.

Answer 5

America's industrial centers (both then and now) lie in the northern regions of the country. While the southern states had a wealth of cotton and tobacco, it had no factories to render those raw materials into sale-able items. They had to ship the cotton up north, or to England to make money.



War, in any time period, is an expensive endeavor. Troops must be clothed, fed, trained, and armed. The north blockaded the southern ports and did not allow goods to leave (if they could help it.) The money dried up, the men in the Confederate States army nearly ran out of ammo, clothing, and starved before the South finally made peace.



What would the world be like if the area that we know as the United States had been successfully split in two? I don't know that it would have lasted.

Answer 6

the reason the south lost the war was a number of things.



1.it was because the north had all the industry to make guns and cannons the south was agulter

2. the south couldn't replace the troops it lost in the Major battles like Gettysburg and battles like that



3.they abbaned their objectives by going north they had been winning the war by making the Union army come to them and they got to choose the ground they fought on when lee went north he let the north choose where he would fight take Gettysburg example they controlled the high ground lee knew he couldn't win



and to all those saying that the confederates were poorly trained are false. they were very well trained in fact look at the battles that were won. they won most of the battles that they fought.but just lost the war plus the fact that the south had most of the west point grads on their side and knew the importance of having a well trained army. and the Calvary struck fear in hearts of the most battle harden Union solder. so they were not poorly trained heck they were winning the war up until Gettysburg.

Answer 7

The North had much greater resources and manpower. Most of the money, railroads, and industry was in the North. The South was almost all agricultural. As Rhett Butler says in Gone With The Wind "all we have is cotton and slaves". The Northern Navy blockaded 200 Southern ports. This made it harder and harder to acquire arms and supplies. The North recruited in Europe. They had an advantage in technology with better rifles. As the war wore on the men were away at war and this created a farming shortage. So food became scarce and very expensive. Its amazing that the South lasted as long as it did. This was due to better generals and the advantage of fighting mostly on their own soil.

Answer 8

Most of the above are true except the part about the poorly trained troops: Think about it, given the Union had a larger population and a much larger industial base, had Confederate troops really been poorly trained the war would have been over in weeks. The skill and quality of Confederate troops and leaders was excellent and probably the only reason the war lasted anywhere near as long as it did.

Answer 9

The Confederate Army was largely made up of conscripts. Poorly trained and equipped men whose main occupaiont was farming. There were not enough men to sustain an army of the same size as the Union Army. By the end of the war, boys as young as 12 were taking the field, and the Confederacy had begun an all black regiment, offering freedom to any slave who fought. Also, with little or no industry except for cotton production and farming, the Confederacy did not have the money to feed, clothe or arm their men properly. The Confederate soldiers were tired, hungry, and angry at their leaders. They didn't have the heart to fight. There are tales of whole companies simply laying down their arms and either leaving or waiting to be caught so they could eat and be warm.

Answer 10

They expected the english to protect the eastern sea-border. Why? Because the south supplied the majority of England's cotton. Turns out that England had a huge boom in cotton that year thus had no need for the Confederation anymore. Hence, no naval support.

Answer 11

Hello... =)



If I were a Christian, I would say that God was not on their side on the slavery issue, because I truly do believe that it was our Holy War, here in the US.



Not so much States vs States, but Abolishon vs. Slaving.... Right vs Wrong, Good vs Evil...all of that. This is not to say that all, or even most, Southerners were evil. Hell, most of them didn't even know what they were fighting for, besides their homes and families.



A more simplistic look at the question was that we were fighting over the right of slaves to be considered HUMAN vs BEASTS of BURDEN.....



As I said, if I believed there was a God, I'm sure he would have been on the side of the Union. Since I do not, however, it occurs to me that this evil point of view, that the slaving states held, brought about the fruits of Evil Karma, and ultimately, defeat was inevitable.



In more practical reasons, we can look at it and say that in many ways, the South was at a disadvantage in manufacturing facilities, and in Money. But I think these were more means to an end, ultimately.



Namaste,



--Tom

Answer 12

Smaller population did not provide for constant replacement of killed, wounded, missing and captured troops or officers.



Limited manugactoring did not enable the south to increase weapons, clothing, and transportation production to meet needs.



Slavery made it impossible for sympathetic foreign governments to provide military assistance.

Answer 13

Because slavery is inhumane. I think the question is, "What IF the South won the civil war." What sort of country would we be today?

Answer 14

Logistics

Answer 15

no support from a foreign power - not enough industry - lack of men - not enough weapons - political problems - money problems - transportation problems - are a few to give an idea

Answer 16

because if they never whent to getty's burg and kept the unions sprits up then we still may of have slaves

Answer 17

many reasons...poorly trained troops, poorly equipped, out numbered, etc.

Answer 18

WHY WE LOST SOUTH VIETNAM?





The Republic of Vietnam Armed Forces and the United States military in Vietnam were fighting against not only the Vietnamese Communist forces, but the whole Communist bloc as well.



=================================================



Why did we lose the second half of Vietnam to the hands of the Vietnamese Communist Party while South Vietnam and U.S. forces were armed with better weapons, more sophisticated equipment, supreme fire power?



This is one of the most controversial issues in the world that could be debated long into the future. Any study of the issue must take all the great many factors into consideration. Therefore, a short article could not cover the entire matter. And a book about it with full details could be of many hundred pages, even a thousand. Viet Quoc Home Page with many articles about the armed conflict in Vietnam is contributing only a little part of the vast domain concerning the Vietnam War.



This article is written to present a general opinion of the Vietnamese nationalist side, in order to present a number of facts especially those have not been taken into consideration by foreigner writers, to help readers with some more information. It is also for many readers who have been asking us the same question, such as high school and college students in their history classes.



1. Most anti-Communist Vietnamese believe that the United States was right when supporting the Republic of Vietnam with aids and soldiers. However, the American and the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) governments have lost the war because Washington was lacking in resolution, while South Vietnamese leaders were relying too much on American support and believed that Washington would never accept the dishonor of a total defeat.



North Vietnam Communist regime mobilized its largest resources - especially human - to sustain the war that caused it great losses. Almost a generation of North Vietnamese (born 1940 to 1955) was decimated. Many specialists, teachers and skilled workers were sent to South Vietnam as privates and have never come back.



Such mobilization was done by tightly controlling the human stomach. Hanoi established a distribution system of all basic goods (rice and rice substitutes, meat, clothing...) in scanty rations. With such system, Hanoi could compel its people to contribute their best to the war effort.



The Communist leaders in Hanoi exposed their resolution to fight to the last North Vietnamese to win the war and to maintain the ruling power of their party.



Meanwhile in South Vietnam, despite military situation was critical, the RVN government had to maintain a society as normal as possible, providing its citizens with minimum needs for a minimum standards of living.



2. The RVN and U.S. military forces committed several errors in the war.



The United States Armed Forces relied too much on their great fire power and modern weaponry and equipment. Tactics of conventional battle were mainly applied against the enemy's unconventional warfare, while American leaders seemed to be overconfident in their "know-how" in fighting a war that required the more know-how on psychological strategy than just on modern technology.



The South Vietnamese and the American military leaders tried some effective formulas with limited success. In Military Region I, the U.S. Marines and RVN Popular Force (village militia) joined together in mixed combat platoons which proved significant efficiency in counter-guerilla efforts. But it was difficult for other American infantry units to do the same because of differences in language, command and support system. Moreover, most American commanders seemed reluctant to commit their troops to militia-type activities beside poor Vietnamese. Such attachment posed trouble in control and command on the American side.



3. The air war over North Vietnam could have had desired effects if it had been executed intensively and quick. Escalation of air strikes proved a failure, especially when Hanoi regime didn't have many valuable things to lose in air strikes. It was unreasonable to put a million-dollar jet fighter and a pilot at risk of being shot down just to destroy a bridge that cost a few thousand dollars when no more objectives of higher values existed.



4. The Vietnam War has been the first armed conflict in which political and psychological warfare were the invisible fronts that the United States has ever fought.



Beside pure military failures, the RVN and the United States did achieve some victories in the other fronts. Two of the key strategies of the alliance that proved successful were the Phuong Hoang Campaign (Phoenix) and the Chieu Hoi Program.



The Phuong Hoang Campaign aimed at destroying the Communist infrastructure in South Vietnam. Communist party clandestine organizations were the backbone of the war which provided all kinds of supports including intelligence and transportation of food and ammunition supplies to its combat troops.



During the war, Western media insisted that Phuong Hoang campaign produced insignificant outcome. But recently, top North Vietnamese officials confirmed that the Phuong Hoang dealt fatal blows to the Communist infrastructure in the South.



Unfortunately, the success that nearly paralyzed the whole Communist underground network was not fully exploited.



The other was Chieu Hoi Program, which began in 1963. By April 1975, the program had attracted more than 159,000 soldiers and members of the Communist Party clandestine organizations to rally to the RVN side. Among them, about 15,000 were from North Vietnam Army regular units. Those who surrendered without willing to change side were classified as POWs, not as chieu hoi.



The ralliers received vocational training and got help in finding jobs. A large number enlisted in the RVN army and various paramilitary units. About 700 served American combat platoons as Kit Carson Scouts.



Many of the ralliers contributed their skill and their intelligence information as well as their blood to the just cause of the RVN. Thank to their contribution, the allied forces achieved numerous feats of arms, including destruction of important targets in North Vietnam.



5. On the pure military domain, "body count" has been a wrong way in conducting the war.



Besides, "body count" meant little to the North Vietnamese Communist leaders, two of whom were Ho Chi Minh and Vo Nguyen Giap. More than once, they confirmed that their side would decide to sacrifice unlimited human lives for final victory.



Many people were saying that MACV Headquarters lied to the press, exaggerating the enemy losses.



MACV reported that the total loss of lives on the Communist side was about more than 900.000. But a few years ago, the Communist government in Hanoi confirmed that it had lost 1,1 million soldiers. Nearly no one has given MACV retroactive credit for its discretion in reporting enemy dead.



In a related matter, the enemy strength in the MACV's estimate included only Communist troops in various combat units, while civilians serving the supply and transportation tasks - that were done in the RVN and U.S. units by the soldiers - were not counted. If non-military personnel serving Communist units were listed as military members, total strength of the Communist forces in South Vietnam could be at least twice the number 250,000 to 300,000 in the MACV estimate.



6. So far, in comments on the Vietnam War, many people have taken for granted that the only four parties in the war were the Americans, the South Vietnamese, the North Vietnamese and its disguised subordinate, the so-called National Liberation Front. That was true on the battlefields only.



In fact, the Vietnam Communist Party and its regime were strongly supported by the whole Communist bloc. Immense military aids came from Beijing and Moscow. Unofficial sources estimated that aids from Red China and the Soviet Union had been in tens of billion dollars, not far lower than US aids to South Vietnam and American military expenses in the Vietnam War.



Moreover, the Soviet Union, China, North Korea and possibly Cuba joined North Vietnamese Communist forces in direct fighting the Americans in North Vietnam with their combat pilots, and air defense SAM-6 surface-to-air battalions (Soviet). Beijing also sent some infantry divisions to safeguard the northern mountainous area of North Vietnam and many engineer regiments to repair bombed bridges and road in North Vietnam.



On the other hand, the Vietnamese Communist leaders were certain that American and South Vietnamese forces would not invade North Vietnam. So Hanoi could leave their land undefended against invasion by the Allies to send all their available ground forces to the battles in the South.



All of those proved that the Allies had underestimated the enemy capability.



7. Many South Vietnamese reason that if the U.S. forces had been employed in a cordon at the 17th Parallel from the Mekong River crossing Laotian territory, extending to the South China Sea, sealing off supply and infiltration of troops from North Vietnam and leaving the inner land battles to the South Vietnamese military, the war would have come to a different ending - at a draw if not victory.



It has been unknown whether the American government had any secret limitation in foreign relations that forbade US Army troops from operating on the territory of Laos.



8. The most powerful "weapons" of the Vietnamese Communist Party in war had been "terrorism and psychological warfare."



With terrorism in South Vietnam, the Communists needed only from 2 to 5 guerrillas to control a remote village of 1,000 people though only at night. They imposed severe and prompt punishment ranged from "three-month re-education" to "mutilation" (chopping off one finger if the convicted had intended to join the RVN army). A VC district "security chief" had the competence of giving death sentence to those considered as "incorrigible enemy's collaborators."



Terrorism also helped the Communists with huge cash support. A large number of businesses, large or small, mostly in South Vietnam remote areas that lacked of security protection, had to pay the Communist "kinh tai" (economy & finance) regularly. Failure to pay after repeated warnings or telling on them to the authorities surely brought death sentences to the victims. Many restaurants were attacked by hand grenades, hundreds of cross-country buses and local three-wheeled passengers vehicles were blown up by land mines because of similar reasons.



In several provinces, such kind of contributions that the VC "kinh tai" collected was more than taxes collected by the RVN local government.



Saigon and Washington dared not - and were unable to - possess such weapon.