Missed Confederate Opportunities

1. Could of been more pro active after the first manassas. if they would have went on to occupy washington britain would have had to recognised, lead to breaking the annexation.

• Had Stonewall jackson been at full health during seven day battles, csa might have triumphed even more greatly
• Lee's battle plans being lost.
• Better Confederate leadership in 1863 might have prevented loss of vicksburg and brought victory at gettysburg

Political Leadership

Good points of lincoln

Good

• Wasnt known on a large scale to the american people
• Worked hard
• Held a stable cabinet throughout the war.
• Took Criticism well
• More succesfull at delegation
• Picked winning combinations of millitary leaders.
• Good foreign policies, (trent affair)
• Managed resources well,

Political Leadership

Bad Points of Lincoln

• How much did he actually do, delegated a lot of work to his advisors.
• Human rights wise, he never intended to stop slavery, just stop the expansion, although considered humane the emancipation proclomation could be considered more of a political barrier for britain entering the war, than for the well being of slaves.
• Had an easy task leading the north, already industrial, had enough resources, population and millitary power.
• Arguably meddled to often in millitary matters, often changing generals and re appointing mclellan.
• More interested in party politics?
• Acting tyranicaly, revoking heabus corpus. dictat?
• Little administrative experience.

Political Leadership

Davis good points

• With regards to managing resources, there was a lack of resources to manage, he did what he could with the little there was.
• Useful millitary and administrative experience.
• Robert E lee: " no one could have done a better job"
• Dedication to the cause.
• Gave freedom to those generals which he trusted (Lee)
• Realistic about the war, the strength of the union and the duration of the battle.

Political Leadership

Davis Bad Points

• Failed to establish good working relationship with his cabinet, resulted in high staff turnover and instability within.
• Meddled in affairs of his subordinates, failed to delgate well.
• Meetings with cabinets were often long and unsuccesful with no real conclusion to each.
• Too Conservative at a time in which the CSA needed revolutionary inspiration
• Despotism Tendancies?

• Perhaps; a more defensive strategy would have conserved manpower, enabling the confed's to prolong the war.
• E.g chancellorsville, General Lee lost 65,000 casualties.

• On the other hand, the CSA millitary leaders whom did adopt the more defensive style, gave up lots of land and CSA public's  morale began to drop.
• Lee's strategy of offense over defense brought him inches away from victory multiple times.
• When Lee was forced to act defensively and deprived of the opportunity to manouvre 1864-5, failure was inevitable.

Lee who is a target for revisionist historians, was arguably one of the greatest millitary leaders of all time. more often than not he was hugely outnumbered but through superior tactics was able to pull out some famous victories. if other generals were to fought as well, the result of the war may have been different for the CSA.

NO

• Would have resulted in a loss of territory, and also slaves.
• Britain and france would not recognise a guerilla state only a formal uniformed army.
• Those guerilla armies in the past had relied on international support to allow them to continue surviving. This was not possible because of the ideological implications of a nation supporting slavery, also with the embargo put in place by the north. was inconcievable.

During the war there were areas which had guerilla warfare, in the lower south, however when davis called for fully fledged geurilla warfare in 1865 the morale in the country was so low that nobody answered his call. They recognised that guerilla actions would ismply prolong the misery they were currently experiencing. with little hope of victory coming from this warfare.

Did CSA Focus too much on Virginia?

Yes

Davis concentrated almost all of his resources on virginia and neglected the needs of the millitary in the west which lead to defeat. and loss of the war.

No

In fairness to davis it is highly doubtful even with resources focused out west that the CSA could have won these battles, the union were always in the more favourable position.

Due to its geographical location it made sense to focus on virginia, it suited the defender. furthermore it made even greater sense to designate lee (the greatest CSA leader) to this area.

Overall

Resources in the CSA were scarce, they would not have been in any better position had they split resources between the two. Farmer argues that davis recognised both were equally important to the survival of the csa and that davis had to hold both with limited manpower, and limited talent.

Inept CSA western commanders

How Inept?

• Overall very poor, Beauregard focused his plans not on reality.
• Bragg Quarelled with everybody
• Joe johnston always had one eye fixed on retreat.

However in fairness to the CSA leaders, they were highly under-resourced and had major problems of supply.

• Lincoln did find the winning solution of Sherman and grant.
• Grant arguably best soldier of war, had a concept of the total war strategy which was necessary to win the war.
• Grant also had the skill, determination and will power to see the strategy through. Even in cases where he was experiencing major losses.
• Shermans advances through the south to places where the government never imagined they could reach dampened CSA spirits and weakened the south logistically.
• However the union generals were far from supermen, they also had their own blunders which led to southern victories. Moreover they were winners because of their larger and better equpped armies.

Lack of Nationalism on the part of CSA?

YES

• CSA were never an established country, many of the public put their allegiances to their state rather than to the confederacy as a whole.
• This is exemplified by the lack of willing to engage in guerilla warfare in 1865.

Lack of Nationalism on the part of CSA?

No

• A clear show of nationalism came in 1861 when 500,000 men enlisted for millitary service.
• Nationalism is debatably one of the key reasons why the south managed to survive as long as they did.
• North were close to throwing in towel in 1864 after sustaining casualty numbers that the south had endured for almost 3 years.

• Some southerners began to question whether God was really on their side after mass destruction and casualties being endured.

However....

Religion was one of the key factors that kept morale + nationalism up in the south.

Religion, more over played a vital role in the south to sustaining their will to succeed against the union.

Slavery Qualms?

How significant and realistic?

• Not very.
• Almost all evidence suggests that most southerners went to war to preserve slaver and remained commited to the cause of preservation.

• 2/3 of CSA white population were non slaveholders, as the war progressed they began to resent risking their lives and property in order to defend the 'perculiar institution'
• Others became alienated through hardship (class difference)

However....

Mcpherson when investigating civil war found little evidence to suggest class division emerging. Many non slaveholders were ready to fight and die for the confederacy from start to finish.

• Drew Giplin Faust: 'why the confederacy did not endure longer?.. it was because so many women did not want it to."
• As a result of the drop in economy, hardship hit southerners. This lead to a sense of defeatism, something which southern women conveyed in letters to their husbands on the front line, claiming that they should put 'family before national loyalty.' (resulting in mass desertion.)
• In reality many southern women remained loyal and backed their husbands to continue fighting for the cause.
• The loss of loved ones often reinforced rather than eroded loyalty to the confederacy.