Why did The Confederates Lose Despite Their Big Military Victories? - The American Civil War (1862)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 сен 2024
- Why did The Confederates Lose Despite Their Big Military Victories? - The American Civil War (1862)
Both sides of the conflict had hoped for a swift and minimally damaging war. Yet, it was clear now that the end was far from near, and the Union - despite its laundry list of advantages - was struggling. The start of 1862 had scarcely seen any significant Confederate losses thus far, however, the North was coming into the new year with fresh motivation and determination…
PART 1 - • How did the American C...
PART 2 - • How did the American C...
PART 4 - • Why did The Confederat...
♦Consider supporting our work and Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @knowledgia
♦Consider supporting us on Patreon :
/ knowledgia
♦Please consider to SUBSCRIBE: goo.gl/YJNqek
♦Our general knowledge channel: / @masteringknowledge
♦Music by Epidemic Sound
♦Script & Research :
Skylar J. Gordon
#History #Documentary
PART 1 -> ruclips.net/video/bYaYCltLsdk/видео.html
PART 2 -> ruclips.net/video/GiW_supSSOk/видео.html
PART 4 -> ruclips.net/video/wu2mZOuvCsQ/видео.html
You can help us directly by becoming a Member: ruclips.net/channel/UCuCuEKq1xuRA0dFQj1qg9-Qjoin
You can also support us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/Knowledgia
Thank you so much for your consideration!
Can you help me get a job as a poster for my what if/Alternative World History opinions and more please??? 😢
Any particular reason why the East of Boston is showing up as confederate?
The US North actually had a Plan to win the US Civil War ("Anaconda") whereas the South had ahem *"the cause of slavery "* ahem so imagine for one moment fighting and dying for the right of one person to literally own another person. *AFTER* losing the "cause" became "States' Rights" but during the War only one State the Dominion State of Virginia claimed this Right all rallying to *THAT* Flag only and none other the irony being that only upon Virginia was slave *TRADING* still legal and at auction...so quite an even worse cause to embrace at that. This gave the US North causii bellum versus the Confederacy which wished to establish Slave States from Coast to Coast to include Mexico...and for this a War of Aggression would be waged by the US States of the South #war_criminals all.
In one of the last battles mentioned, you repeat Johnson's name and then mention Lee but don't show them on the map. Is this an error?
Also, the reason(s) for Lincoln suddenly wanting to issue Emancipation Proclamation is not explained, nor is the Emancipation Proclamation described as to what it is--the name is not a clear giveaway. I had to read up on old Wikipedia and some other site as to what it does and why it was issued. Otherwise, this video makes it seem random, weird, and nonsensical to do such an issuance right in the middle of a war
Where is the rest?
In short, four reasons.
1: A lack of cohesion on pursuit of strategic goals.
2: A lack of resources to capitalize on tactical victories.
3: A chronic nepotistic political micromanagement.
4: A severe lack of industrial capacity for sustaining a prolonged conflict.
You can add a lack of a large enough population base. The North could man the Union Army And man the factories and farms needed to support both the military and civilian economy. The South could not.
The number three reason is often overlooked. The Confederacy was more like a military dictatorship than a democracy.
5. their generals kept getting killed
@@RafaelSantos-pi8py
lol how so? Sates often refused Davis’s requests while the north locked up political opponents, closed newspapers and all sorts of things
@@triplem5770 tragically, Stonewall Jackson knew/predicted all of these potential reasons why the Confederacy would lose the war, hence why he had some inspiration from how Napoleon operated during the 1804-5 campaign. Before his death, his Napoleonic-like maneuvers in the 1862 campaigns were a better success against Union forces, while Lee wanted to replicate General Wellington's defensive postures that illogically wouldn't work against the union's manpower.
"Amateurs talk strategy. Professionals talk logistics." Soldiers win battles. Logistics wins wars. Logistics favored the North.
Soldiers wins wars , Amateurs talk tactics, profies talk strategy of which logistics is only a small part
@@thodan467 Small part? Not according to General Omar Bradley, a 5 star general, who I quoted. Between you and the general, the general knows more. A LOT more.
@@jim2376
I agree but i think Bradley meant the ioperational level for the US army in WWII.
I spoke about the grand strategy, the political - military level above that and i said small not unimportant
@@thodan467Five star generals know more than you. That said, keep swinging the bat.
@@jim2376 omg i wrote basically the same quote in my essay in liberal arts course. The prof was like ‘did you really come up with that on your own?’ now i know why lol.
my version was ‘strategies win battles economies win wars.’
While Lee was winning flashy tactical victories in the east that didn’t really change the calculus of the war, Grant was winning *strategic* victories in the west and slowly cutting off Confederate supplies. By the time Lee lost at Gettysburg, Grant had already tied the noose by taking Vicksburg the day after.
He shoulda been held accountable for countless wãr crîmës a la Yamashita standard. This îñbrēd wær machine he wielded almost ended the country
"By the time Lee lost at Gettysburg, Grant had already tied the noose by taking Vicksburg the day after." How do "by the time" and "already" agree with "the day after"?
@@kodiak9840 Vicksburg had been under siege the entire Gettysburg campaign and there was no chance of it getting saved. The surrender the day after Gettysburg was a culmination of an ongoing effort.
@@franciscoacevedo3036 Only in whatever fantasy world you obviously live in.
@@franciscoacevedo3036 Deep.
My family all fought for the South. I’ve studied this in reasonable detail. Despite the romantic notion that the South had the best Generals, they had some really bad generalship too, including big mistakes by Lee (Gettysburg). You mix that with a lack of industrial capacity, a smaller army, and the North’s willingness to continue to fight, the outcome was a forgone conclusion. I’m from Texas and remember the words of Sam Houston when he was ousted for refusing to take the oath of the Confederacy. He basically predicted the whole war.
Let me tell you what is coming. After the sacrifice of countless millions of treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives, you may win Southern independence if God be not against you, but I doubt it. I tell you that, while I believe with you in the doctrine of states rights, the North is determined to preserve this Union. They are not a fiery, impulsive people as you are, for they live in colder climates. But when they begin to move in a given direction, they move with the steady momentum and perseverance of a mighty avalanche; and what I fear is, they will overwhelm the South.[97
Great comment. Thank you.
Not Lee at Gettysburg, but JEB Stuart failing to carry out Lee's orders then retreating from Custers much smaller cavalry force leaving Confederate Infantry unable to dig in on high ground.
@@andrewhart6377 Longstreet begged Lee to leave Gettysburg and go to Washington before the real fighting began. Then Pickett’s Charge on the third day? Yeah, you can’t blame it all on Stuart. Of course, Meade demonstrated his lack of strategy by not destroying Lee after the third day.
@@johnbaugh2437 Lee was not well either he had Dysentery at the time.
Multiple errors on the CSA side lost the battle, biggest was no early reconnaissance of the enemy,cause by Stuart’s absence, compounded by Lee not heading the advice of Longstreet and others that could of save the Army of Northern Virginia from near total destruction. Lee was the general in charge, therefor it is his loss. The south had no more to draw men or supplies from , the war was lost.
While Grant did wear Lee down, what is often overlooked is how each battle threatened Lee’s position and forced him to keep retreating all the way to Richmond until he had nowhere to go, and therefore trapping him. Lee had two options, he could either surrender the capitol (and thus lose the war) or die.
He had no options after 1863 besides diplomatic ones. Lincoln winning 1864 election and the southern disasters in georgia/eastern Tenn made the war untenable for Lee.
@@zoanth4 Lee never actually controlled the armies in Georgia or Tenn. The generals of those armies controlled their own forces. One of the problems with the Confederate military structure was that each state had their own generals and officers . Lee was in office name the commander of the Confederate Army . But not so much in practice . He only really controlled his army in Virginia.
It's also notable that the Confederate Government never actually surrendered . The military did. Because well they didn't have much of a choice in the later half of the war. And the reason the war lasted as long as it did was the fact that the Confederates were fighting a defensive war. And didn't take advantage of their early victories. Falsely believing that if they killed enough Yankee soldiers the Union public would turn against the war and for the Union government of the US to end the war in a treaty. As the war progressed the mood changed as several generals wanted to invade the North and show the yankees what the cost of war was . But by then it was too late.
And for the war itself all the southern states can blame South Carolina for Fort Sumter which was the actual declared provocation for the Union's declaration of war.
Most people today don't realize this but the war wasn't about the institution of slavery. It was an economic caused war like most in history in which the Southern states succession placed economics above slavery as a cause. And the Union's whole reason for invading the South was the raw resources needed for northern industries thinly hidden behind the outrage over the siege of Fort Sumter . Which the only person killed there was killed by accident involving a cannon firing.
@@John2r1yeah, the rebel states declared slavery as a entire reason and AB getting elected was also the spark but go off i guess
@@John2r1 from your analysis I take it you're a southerner. The war was 100% about slavery but maybe what you mean is that it wasn't simply for humanist reasons.
@dylanbillingsmrclean Then you bother to do further research and come across the Confederate Constitution which spends most of its time talking about taxes and limiting the power of the government.
And you come across a pre war bill specifically the Corwin Amendment which would have Ironically been the 13th Amendment had it finished going through the ratification process.
The proposed Constitutional Amendment introduced by Ohio Representative Thomas Corwin would have prohibited federal interference with slavery in the states.
Yeah If the Souths only reason for leaving the Union was Slavery as post war union historians claim. And then wouldn't the Corwin Amendment have prevented that considering by the beginning of the war 4 states that had stayed loyal had ratified it abd with the Southern States obviously going to do the same. Bringing the ratification to a the majority required at the time to pass ratification thus giving the Southern States a free pass to continue the institution of Slavery which by 1860 only 1.4% of the Southern population even owned slaves.
Meaning your argument boils down to the Confederacy left the Union who were going to give them full protection from the federal government to continue the institution. Which made human beings property.
Which would be like saying we today go to war to defend the property rights of Elon Musk , Bill Gates , Mark Zuckerberg ,etc.
You do realize how dumb that sounds right ?
But that's what the Union historians of the time went with post war in order to make their side appear to have a moral high ground to stand on when neither side had any moral high ground to stand on.
The war was a Bankers vs Plantation Owners over economic it was literally all about money from the get go.
The old saying Rich man's war ,Poor Man's fight. You will find this a lot in history. The Victor's of conflicts paint themselves as the virtuous heros of their own story. Forgetting entirely the greedy reasons they start the war in the first place and conveniently forgetting about any war crimes committed by their side of the war.
The Victor writes the history books.
"Huge Battlefield Victories"
They lost their largest port in 1862.
They were cut in half in 1863.
Their Industrial Heartland was leveled and burned in 1864.
While the Confederates were winning Tactical Victories wish dash and romantic elan, the Union was destroying them Strategically. In the north life continued as normal, costs were the same, the harvests came and went, you could eat marvelous meals for the same prices.
Meanwhile in the South you couldn't buy flour for less than 500 bucks a barrel.
Even those "victories" were costly as hell to them, aside from Fredericksburg.
Yeah. The US was big on a larger strategy than battles. Not to say the US leadership didn’t value battlefield victories. At first Grant had to fend those things off. But the Mississippi River, a successful blockade, and then a campaign across the deep South combined with the Overland campaign overwhelmed the Confederacy. All that shows up in Winfield Scott’s Anaconda Plan.
@@kaletovhangarA victory is still a victory. Any way you slice it, the CSA lost the war on the field of battle.
@@Psitau Well, that is what I said. Even most of CSA tactical victories were in long run defeats, at least by attrition. 250k CSA for 350k USA losses was never going to cut it.
I might also add that the invasion of the north by Confederate, Cavalry troopers showed the pointless futility of the war. A few hundred Confederates showed up in Ohio and met 60k militia members. No chance the Confederacy could ever win when the Union could just invent armies.
The Confederacy followed a rather similar path as Imperial Japan in WW2. Despite winning some early victories, both the Confederates and the Japanese could not sustain their war efforts, and lost heavily trying to win knockout blows. After that, it was just a matter of fighting more desperately as they lost more ground.
It’s called hubris.
The southern aristocrat and Japanese generals both held the conceit that they were very manly warriors, and yankee shopkeepers could only make for poor soldiers. Their belief was that the yankees were inclined to give up when things became difficult.
It turns out that yankee shopkeepers make superior soldiers, and difficulty does not dissuade them.
Japs were in a more complicated situation. Yank myopically perspective ignores that 90% of the Jap Army fought a terrible and cruel genocidal war in China since 1933 to 1945 against Chinese guerrillas, and a land war in Indochina and Burma against British, Indian and Australian troops. The attrition that Japs suffered was continuos and big, it is very surprising how they kept up with it for so long.
@michaelmccabe3079 The Confederacy had a very real chance of winning. Northern voters by 1964 were becoming weary of the War, especially the huge casualties. If Atlanta had not fallen the outcome of the 1864 election could have been very different.
@@dennisweidner288 That's not "winning," so much as "forcing a draw." The Confederacy could not dictate peace terms, but could only hope for a stalemate after their failed offensives of 1862. Kinda like how Japan could only force a draw after Midway. The Atlanta Campaign was equally as forlorn: the Confederates had no real options other than "fight more desperately."
Secondly, the anti-war effort in 1864 was still very much in favor of preserving the Union, but were willing to make more concessions in order to get it. Even McClellan, the favored candidate of the antiwar party, knew better than to campaign on a message of "we should let the slave states go free after we spent so much blood and treasure."
A simple question with a simple answer ... Naval Blockade. The North had complete control of the shipping lanes. The British refused to help the South break the North's blockade and once the North split the South by taking control of the Mississippi river it was over.
Early on Briton had been supplying the Confederacy with superior British arms. The blockade makes sense as having an effect on their weaponry.
It overlooks the fact that the Southern Confederacy was based on Slavery and that it was impossible politically for the United Kingdon to support a country where slavery was legal.
If the Southern Confederacy had abolished Slavery when it was formed the Confedereacy would have had a larger manpower pool - especially when one realises the first Black troops fighting in the American Civil War were Free Blacks fighting for the Confederacy in the First Battle of Bull Run also known as First Manassas, the first major battle of the American Civil War.; Free blacks in the Northern Staes were not allowed to serve in the Union Army for over 2 years into the war and the abolition of Slavery in the South would have ended the incentive for Free Blacks in the Northern states and runaway slaves to voluinteer for the Union army.
The United Kingdom needed and wanted southern Cotton and Tobacco and, with the exception of a few Blockade Runners, British merchants would not trade with the South without Royal Navy protection and.whilst Slavery existed in the Confederacy, it was politically unacceptable to the people of Great Britain for the Government to use the Royal Navy to protect British Merchantmen trading with the south forcing the Union to choose between allowing British Merchantmen to trade in Southern Ports. If the South had abolished slavery British merchantmen trading with the southern states would have had Royal Navy protection leaving President Lincoln with the unenvious decision of allowing British Merchants free passage through the Union Blockade of southern ports OR having the Union blockading fleets fighting the Royal Navy to enforce the blockade against Britsh Merchantmen trading in Southern Ports. That would have been a very hard decision for President Lincoln to make as it would have meant a war at sea with the with United Kingdom and the British Empire and a a British blockade of Northern Ports as well as a long hostile Northern Border with Canada as well as the end of Northern states trade with Great Britain and Canada as well as a probable land war along the border with British Ruled Canada.
I note here that Canada did not become a Dominion until the 1st of July, 1867 with the amagamation of the former French colony of Canada and the 3 British colonies forming Canada as the 4 provinces of first colony in the British Empire granted full independence withing the British Empire by being granted Dominion Status and called the Dominion of Canada (still the full official name for Canada) - Lord Roseberry in 1884 on his visit to the Commonwealth of Australia comprising the 6 colonies of Australia. His visit was to lead to the process by which Australia chose its constitution and became a fully independent nation within the British Empire to become the third commonwealth nation within the British Empire after the United Kingdom and Canada was referring to the independent countries within the British Empire.
The Confederate States of America lost its opportunity of British trade by not declaring and end of Slavery early in the American Civil War trading southern cotton and tobacco for British manufactured goods and gold, including modern weapons arms, cloth, shoes and uniforms formerly supplied by the Northern States. Because the Union Blockade forced the UK to find alternative supplies for Cotton and Tobacco and the UK established extensive cotton and tobacco plantations in India that significantly reduced the level of southern exports of cotton and Tobacco to Great Britain after the end of the American Civil War.
Right, Brits were too busy planning on subjugating and murdering Zulus in 1879. @@juliantimothy8945
McClellan: I didn't lose, I merely failed to win
This enraged his father, who punished him severely
Ha! He failed to show up.
@Gancrothor-II Failing to win was losing--it would have meant the dissolution of the Union.
@@dennisweidner288Ran out of stuff
Was he the one called "Little Napoleon".
I'm of the unpopular opinion that the reason for Union victory had a lot to do with Winfield Scott: His strategic outline of how to win the fight was 100% spot-on. He capitalized on the biggest advantage the Union had, which was not in the army but in the navy, and by pushing for and getting a naval blockade succeeded in cutting off the industrial supplies that the Confederacy would need to continue to fight long-term. And then when you look at what they were trying to do once it became clear that directly assaulting Richmond wasn't going to do the job, it fits Scott's Anaconda Plan framework very well - capture New Orleans, capture the Mississippi, capture ports and islands and use the Navy to keep help away, the Union can make guns and ammunition and lay railroad tracks and the Confederates can't, leaving the Confederates ultimately doomed.
There's always been a difference between winning battles and winning wars. Winning battles might get you glory and your name in the papers, but arranging, say, the distribution of repeating rifles to cavalry units is at least as important as being in the front of a glorious charge up a hill.
Kinda interesting that Scott was a southerner himself
The South had better Generals/leadership. They also had better cavalry. That is why they did so well early in the war.
But you are correct in the analogy of the "Anaconda Plan" and a war of attrition. Our military continues to use it to this day when politicians don't muck it up.
@@peterwhitcomb8315 Southern generalship looks good in the east but performs poorly in the west. Floyd, A.Johnston, VanDorn, J.Johnston, Pemberton, Bragg all fared very poorly against Grant.
You are correct about cavalry, and that proved to be a significant advantage in the first two years of the war. Horse racing and similar equestrian traditions were very much more common in the south than the north, so it was easier for the Confederacy to find a large number of highly competent horsemen and appropriate horses at the beginning of the war. Furthermore, the US War Department policy was to de-emphasize cavalry, because cavalry were much more expensive and took a long time to train. Why sent forward 1 cavalryman many months from now, when you could send 4 infantrymen to the front immediately and win the war sooner?
Alas, Rosecrans and Grant found that had to hold back 3-4 infantrymen in garrisons to protect their supply line, for every 1 rebel cavalryman they faced. And still they suffered supply disruptions that delayed movements forward. The Union eventually built up their cavalry and achieved rough parity by the early summer of 1863.
@@ComradeOgilvy1984
Well to be honest, (almost) everyone fared poorly against Grant. Him (and later Roosevelt) were very interesting to study/learn about from a military standpoint.
People do often overlook the fact that the south didnt have a navy and how massive a game changer that is when two countries at war both have considerable coastlines. No anaconda and open ports mean european support could have come through. Or perhaps war against north coastline if the south managed to get the upper hand on the water.
Great Presentation. Short & Concise. Thank you.
After Grant took over they had a battle, the south would " win" and the the union army would continue marching south. What is victory? This is why people call this the first modern war. Lincoln and Grant recognized that the mission was to end the confederacy's capacity to field an army, not the defeat of the army it had fielded.
A quote from a general in the army of a similarly despicable regime: "I knew we were losing because the reports of our grand victories kept getting closer to Berlin."
Wars are ultimately about supply lines. If you cut off your opponent's ability to wage war against you by cutting off their supplies, they're screwed in due time, no matter how battle savvy they are.
yup. The most important battle of the Second Punic War was The Metaurus.
Yep. Anacona.
Incorrect, because if you're goal is to break their back and take YOUR supplies, it doesn't if you just cut their supplies, they are aiming for yours. And with a competent general...like Napoleon (which he did this) it means you only screwed yourself.
He left his supply line himself, and took supplies from the Austrians as he defeated them.
@@SoulKiller7Eternal Then they could also beat you WITH supplies to begin with. A caveat here is that you need to be able and willing to stay out of combat to let attrition do its thing.
An example of this (and also to affirm that you do have a point) see the battle of Pharsallus between Caesar and Pompey (and his Senators). The Pompeiian faction had the Caesarian army cornered and cut from supplies. They could starve them out, but the senators urged Pompeii not to achieve victory that way. It would look bad and cowardly politically. So, he finally offered battle and well, Caesar achieved a decisive victory and while the Anti-Caesar faction remained lingering for a few years, it was essentially over at this point.
Also obviously this is what happens when you let politicians decide over experts in the field.
Lack of industry and resources compared the Union armies.
Check the coastline.
ive been enjoying this channel for a number of years now and it just occurred to me,
Would it be unreasonable to make a request?
I am south african, and I really enjoy the depth this channel goes into with situations and battles.
Would it be possible to do a few videos on the First or second Boer wars? there are some really interesting politics and battles there.
Thank you so much for all the detail and research.
I would also like to learn more about this
theres nothing interesting about anything poltiical
@@nomercyinc6783 Go To Bed.
I would be down for that.... as a Canadian, the second Boer War was where we began our reputation that spilled into WW1 and 2.
A reputation i love btw
@@derricktalbot8846 "A reputation i love btw
The best thing about Robert E. Lee is that he told his troops to accept going back to the Union.
"It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it." -- Robert E. Lee
Said the man that was too fond of his horse...
@@TheWoollyFrogyour fond of frogs. 😂
Why do wars keep going on even in 2024.
Military Industrial Complex. Create enemies and saber rattle to have forever wars@@claudettedelphis6476
@@claudettedelphis6476It's in human DNA. Sad.
Maps tend to flatten how terrain is seen. The reality is the mountains run north to south and severely slow movement. Then add in waterways. Tough slogs.
Disease infested swamps and marshes. Thick mud in every road or no roads at all. Few places to gather water and food for men and horses.
@cwolf8841 Actually waterways were the principal means of transport. The railways were just beginning to transport them, primarily in the North. And roadways did not yet exist.
The answer is because the video caption is misleading. The Army of Northern Virginia enjoyed success in the east, and lightweight historians tend to focus on that and that alone. Meanwhile in the west the Confederates lost almost all the significant engagements (Chickamauga being a singular exception). Lost Cause mythology notably ignores these losses and prefers to focus on Lee and Jackson to the exclusion of any understanding of the failure of the Confederate military effort.
💯
Jackson lost as often as he won.
Eh, the South won more battles of significance than that in the West, but as you pointed out, while historians focus on one view, they ignore the other. The South also won major battles such as the Red River Campaign, Corinth, and one time Chattanooga. You can even point out that Grant attempted 3 Vicksburg campaigns, with the 3rd finally being successful, but he failed miserably the other 2 times.
@@KingofDiamonds85 Some claim Shiloh as a Confederate victory, but I find that to be ludicrous. I'd say much the same for Vicksburg, being a bit of a "we were winning until we lost" argument. Corinth was an unequivocal defeat for the Confederates. The Second Battle of Chattanooga was a siege that drove the Union out of the city...a Confederate victory of sorts, but not a major battle per se. We may be splitting hairs a bit, but thinking in terms of full armies rather than actions at division strength or less, Chickamauga stands out as the one major victory for the Army of Tennessee.
@@jacksons1010 The only way Shiloh can even be seen as a victory is it set up the Battle of Corinth, which was a Confederate victory. But the bigger loss wasn't the battle, but losing Albert Sydney Johnston.
Vicksburg the battle itself was a victory for the South, but the siege was definitely a loss.
The first Corinth battle was a confederate victory, the second was a union victory.
Heck, you can even technically call the Battle of Perryville a Confederate victory, but Bragg was a moron and left the field for no good reason.
The confederacy’s early victories had more to do with the lack of preparedness by the Union. Once Lincoln found some capable generals, it was done. The csa’s commanders had very outdated ideas about warfare that cost far more than they could ever have gained.
You can say that for first Bull Run, but for the Virginia battles of 1862-3 I would say bad commanders.
The vast majority of experienced commanders with innovative spirits were in the CSA. So, guess you should try again.
@@minecraftfox4384 not really, experienced commanders and outdated go hand in hand in time periods of such radical change like the civil war. "i fought in 3 wars already, i know how this works" isnt usually that innovative.
@@minecraftfox4384 The vast majority of confederate generals have been undeservedly glorified by a post war South that was searching for a reason they had lost so decidedly and settled on "they bought more toys but us, any other way we shoudl have won", which was delusional in 1865 and is criminally stupid in 2023.
Both Lee and Jackson had MASSIVE flaws that cost them badly when their maneuvering wasn't enough to force a quick victory. Longstreet in the end was probably the better general as he knew when to give up a bad fight and neither of these "superheros" could do that with their stubbornness and pride, his legacy was just intentionally destroyed out of pettiness over his post war politics of reconciliation. And both Johnstons in the West had far more consistent results than the sanctified two, or Forrest or "Jeb".
@@minecraftfox4384Every single one of them failed to formulate and execute a strategy for the whole south. So it is amazing what local battles they won, but they lost man and material that could not be replaced. They operated on hope that the north might give up and not a strategy to force them.
The South's economy, lack of recruitment, and agricultural incapabilities to provide aid their troops was what lead them to lose the war and their biggest disadvantages. The South's economy was entirely based on cotton and tobacco; and it has always dependent on the North to manufacture them fabric material to make shirts, pants, and other clothing accessories. And as for food, the North had factories and rural advantage of farmers to grow food for them to use as rations to help feed the Union soldiers, while the South didn't had that agricultural ability to do that. Plus, The South was also losing casualties very rapidly (same for the Union) so they couldn't fight with the lesser amount of men unlike the 200,000 to 300,000 troops they did had when the war started. Great content, man! 😃👍
A Southern writer who was against slavery pointed out that most farm land in the South was planted with cotton, and food had to be brought from up north. By 1863, the lack of food became a major problem for the South as food riots broke out in several cities, which included the Confederate capital of Richmond. In April 1863, President Jefferson Davis ordered the Richmond militia to open fire on several hundred women if they did not leave the area, which they grudgingly did.
@@barbiquearea Yep, the South was so desperate to find rations and supplies for their troops they had no choice to raid homes and steal them from people. And that is when robbery and how "The Old West" will be played out a decade or two later.
True
@bathis is why losing vicksburg was the nail in the coffin
@@zoanth4 And so was March to the Sea when General Sherman told Georgia, splitting the South in half.
"You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about.
War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it … Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth - right at your doors.
You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail.”
Letter from William T. Sherman to Prof. David F. Boyd, 1860
Thanks for sharing!
Damn. I had not seen that one. Sherman is in many respects, the most quotable guy in the war.
He followed up that sentiment with this one:
“War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want.”
Yeah, I can see why Sherman has the rep in the south that he has. . .
Because the Confederacy couldn't win a war of attrition so they needed a catastrophic victory to shatter the Union army, which led to aggressive victories. However the Union only needed to not lose and to stay in the fight while the attrition wore on. This is why the Union pulled out after battle so much. They are often described as slinking away with their tails between their legs but actually they just re positioned to protect the North, then got more people and equipment. Winning battles doesn't win wars. Logistics and winning wars wins wars.
You can loose every battle in a war and still win the war. The winner of a war is decided on before the war is fought
@@KristyMurray-s9n So it was decided the Confederates would lose before it started? And who decided this?
Read US Grant's autobiography and you will see why they lost. Grant systematically and relentlessly cut the available waterways and railroads the Confederacy was using to supply their troops in the field. Lee was brilliant tactically and just kept whipping Union Generals one after another. Grant was brilliant strategically and relentlessly drew a noose around the Army of Northern Virginia until they could get no supplies and then kept the pressure on.
Lee never won a major battle outside of Virginia. Overrated by history, especially considering Thomas Jackson was the true tactical genius of the Army of Northern Virginia -- Lee's successes evaporated immediately after Jackson was shot, and that's no coincidence.
Excited for part 4 of this series.
George Thomas must be the most underrated general of the Civil War.
This title was misleading. You checked to see “why they lost despite winning battles.” But it was just a step by step walkthrough of the war
And it is very inaccurate as well. The troop movement & maps are complete AI garbage.
It really doesn't matter on modern war who is winning battles. What matters is ability to recreating and multiplying its armed forces. It is impossible to understand modern warfare without understanding this simple fact.
if you have the time and space for that
What's even more important to understand that war is a political activity. If you can't politically sustain the will to recreate and multiply armed forces, your economic and demographic advantages are meaningless. Losing battles very nearly sank the US in the Civil War; winning battles provided the political momentum to continue fighting.
I'm going to say the south had 1 victory of note in the whole western theater in the war. Lee had victories in Virginia defending Virginia. His 2 trips north were disasters. Those are the reason the south lost.
watch the video maybe? leave your drooling bias for a second
@@royale7620You didnt watch the video either. You commented this 5 minutes after it was posted, the video is 20 minutes long. Follow your advice and keep your drooling bias to yourself, hypocrite.
Lee was a great field commander but an abysmal war leader. Stonewall Jackson was only good on the offense but ended up getting a huge portion of his troops killed and during the Seven Days, his indecision to huge loses. Lee and Jackson tried time and time again to one shot the Union, while not understanding the actual strength of the Union was its ability to utilize its production and manpower far better than the secessionists. And once Vicksburg was captured, it was pretty much over. Lee was playing to lose and got trapped between Grant (who understood Lee was looking for breathing room and strangled him) and Sherman who came and rammed a boot up Lee's ass. Basically the south had great field commanders whereas the north had better war strategists who were able to see the bigger picture and understood logistics and long term planner a lot better.
Confederates were winning majority of big encounters but were overcome by numbers and resources. There's a reason people study Lee and not Grant in terms of military strategy.
@@royale7620most of us have knowledge outside of this video
The Union blockade and the North's industrial advantage eventually won.
That and the Confederacy fighting a defensive war and not taking advantage of early victories in the war to push for a quick end to the war before the Union got on it's war footing to use that industrial advantage and larger population to win by sending men to die in the south until the Southerns started running out of supplies and ammo.
And the Union generals mainly Grant and Sherman
@thecommunistdoggo1008 Sherman even by the standards of his own time was a war criminal who authorized atrocities against civilians . By his own in actions and actions. Which directly led to undue civilian suffering during a time of war. Had the Confederacy won which means stelmated the Union . Sherman would have been hung for war crimes committed under his command along with his fellow officers under his command.
Grant on the other hand conducted warfare properly for the time. Lee just made some major errors, which led to his defeat in Virginia.
@@John2r1 Cope harder slaver. Do it again Sherman! Though I find it funny how when Lee lost it's because he made mistakes not because Grant was a better general then Lee
The Navy wins wars ... the only hope that the South had was that the British would help and break the Union blockade. The Slavery issue was their undoing. The British weren't going to help slavers regardless of the benefit to them.
Really bold to say McClellan wasn't bad at his job.
He was excellent at the logistical side of making sure his army was equipped, but continually overestimated the size of the Confederate army despite literally ALL of his Corps commanders telling him otherwise. This lead to him being far too passive, and to willing to retreat against smaller forces.
He also fell into the camp of Generals who were too happy to win battles, but not follow them up to finish the job (See: Antietam)
McClellan ran for President in1864 and his platform was to sign a truce with the south, Let the south leave the union, return all free slaves in the north and allow slave hunters free range in the north, oh and he was a Democrat.
What job?
I think Lincoln described him as having a case of the "slows".
@@marknewton6984he basically organized the AOTP from scratch. The army the Meade won with was organized by McClellan. He still sucks tho
Why did they lose? One word -- Grant. Grant spent most of the war deep in enemy territory, attacking well-fortified defensive positions, and won a solid majority of them.
In addition to that, Grant knew how to make use of clear Union advantages and push to the end.
Anybody with unlimited manpower and resources could have done that. Took way too long.
@@KennethMachnica-vj3hf Grant's taking of Vicksburg is probably the greatest campaign of the war. Grant's war efforts were full of successes in all situations.
@@factChecker01 Not sure 'bout that. Like I said..... Stonewall Jackson would have won the war in a couple of weeks, for the south, and Genghis Khan wouldn't have taken much time in that glorified looting expedition. That drunkard Grant was known for having a corrupt administration and he holds the distinction of being the last slave-holding President.
@@factChecker01 maybe you should look up Shenandoah Campaign. Just sayin'. Jackson defeated three armies sent to destroy him. Substantially outnumbered. Let's see. Static city. Surround it. Ask Lincoln for more troops if you lose thousands. Keep surrounding it. Sounds hard.
Grant and Sherman. And Lincoln.
The Confederacy wasn't winning battles in the west, where Union advances would eventually carve up the south like Swiss cheese. The Confederacy did not win any serious strategic battles in the West.
General George Henry Thomas, quite possibly the most effective Union general in the Civil War (he favored defense, back before defense was appreciated, and it was not until WWI was it realized how important defense is), and certainly one of the most modest and underrated (he burned his diary before he died, as he didn't want fame), was one reason the Union won the US Civil War.
we were so naiive. all of us, north and south, we were all so naiive. we thought in terms of manliness or gentlemanly behavior. so lee attacked cannon across an open field at picketts charge because it was manly and god would be on the side of virtue and right.
and to a man, if you were captured in battle, if you promised to go home and not fight any more you were furloughed. we all respected a man's word.
gentlmanly behavior existed all the way into ww1 when patton was reconnoitering no man's land. the germans whistled at him to give him to know if he got any closer they would shoot him. he responded by bending over to tie his shoe laces, as if to say he was not afraid of their bullets, but then he got the hell out of there. so it was gentlemanly enough, with a touch of false bravado from patton.
they marched across open ground into their sure death because it was the manly thing to do. we don't think that way today, hopefully.
of course i think little mac was a good general. i'm on the vast minority in that opinion.
I think that even though the South was really good on a tactical level, they lacked skill on both strategic warfare and international politics.
Kinda like the Axis in WW2. Really great on the battlefield, but lacking on the world level at looking at the big picture.
That's really it in a nutshell: the Confederates started off with better tacticians, while the Union had a coherent strategy (Anaconda Plan) from the start. Given the South's industrial and manpower deficiencies, the South needed a grand picture for how to employ their tacticians. Too many Confederate wins in battle were in places they shouldn't have been fighting in the first place. Like the German General Ludendorff, they tried to "punch a hole in their line. For the rest, we shall see."
You loose without a strategy and the South never had the cohesion nor a strategy to act on.
The South: We're winning! Soon the Confederacy will overtake the Union and Federals!
William Tecumseh Sherman:
It was not because of their generals that the Union won, it was because of their numerical superiority.
what are you talking about? The south lost almost every battle in the west. Their only major victory was Chickamauga and they followed that up with a major defeat at Nashville.
In Lees greatest victory, Chancellorsville, Lee took more causalities than his opponent. He loved killing his men.
The Union had more soldiers, more trains, more weapons and ammunition, they'd have won eventually
Outmanned and outgunned insurrections have succeeded throughout history. But Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee failed where others - like George Washington - were victorious.
Food and clothing too.
Next to no industry, inability to export, dreadful recruitment, minimal logistics and communications, plus limited co-operation between states.
A 3-1 advantage in troops plus a huge advantage in industrial might lead to their loss. The war could have been over much sooner if Grant was in charge vs McClennen .
McClennen was a great overall commander, defiantly in the top 1%.
he wins wars, not battles.
Respectfully disagree as he was relieved of command not once but twice. Lincoln said he had the “slows” At Sharpsburg he had Lee’s orders in his hands and wasted a day before doing anything. His inactions only prolonged the war and cost needless losses on both sides. He was a good organizer and well respected by his troops@@Jack-he8jv
Making Richmond the capitol tied up too much of the resources,
@@anthonytroisi6682 I totally agree with your statement about Richmond. Their Capital would have been easier defended in the deep south somewhere like Atlanta Georgia or a town in Texas or Louisiana
Good point, but the notion of a "capital" at all is emotional, not rational. A "capital" can being taken is meaningless so long as you can maintain government. If anything, declaring something a "captial" just thrusts undue emotional connection to a city which, especially in this case, is so close to the enemy it becomes and emotional Achilles heal despite being military pointless and counterproductive.
Simply put, Confederate victories did not translate into a scenorio in which the Union was defeated or forced to sue for peace.
Lee can defeat as many armies as he like, but as long as he was unable to follow up on those successes to take Washington DC it was all for nothing. A good part of this failure also lies with his costly tactics in terms of soldiers sacrificed. The Union can afford to lose soliders, but the Confederacy can't.
The Confederacy was also myopically focused on the Eastern front, while neglecting it's western side. Grant taking Vicksburg efffectively cut the CSA into and exposed their weak interiors. Capturing New Orleans deprived the CSA of a major port for imports and the construction of naval vessels.
In short the Union sought victories where it counted, the CSA sought victories for victories alone.
The CSA was following a Napoleonic style of warfare, where a decisive battle against the enemy's main army would mean the outcome of the war. However, the world no longer worked that way 1860, Grant was truly the first modern general who thought of war not just on a single battle, but the entire front.
That's just the military side, diplomatically and administratively the CSA was equally incompetent. King Cotton diplomacy was basically economic blackmail against Europe which backfired magnificently. And the argument of state rights worked against the CSA when they want to marshall manpower and resources (but that's what you get when a bunch of racist slavering states seceeded for selfish reasons).
"In short the Union sought victories where it counted, the CSA sought victories for victories alone." There are reasons for this. Assuredly, Lee was well aware of this. However, the way the CSA was governed and supplied meant that it was pretty much up to Lee to win enough tactical victories to create a strategic one. The South's decentralized government meant they could never harnass what little manpower and industrial capacity they did have fully. As a consequence, Lee was a lot like Napoleon after the Battle of Leipzig in 1813; his only chance at a favorable peace was a catastrophic tactical victory that amounted to a strategic one. Unfortunately for the South, Lee couldn't quite deliver the death blow to the Army of the Potomac, nor could he take Baltimore, DC or Philly, or other major city to really deal a blow to Northern Morale. That said, Lee came close by winning battles alone. People forget the political situation and morale of a democratic society being a strategic component of war. In 1864 Lincoln was perilously close to losing the Election. It was only the late victories in GA and against Early that secured his victory. There was absolutely a very real chance Lincoln loses and a peace is hammered out based on Southern Independence under President McClellan and a Democratic plurality in Congress. Had Lee won at Gettysburg, regardless of taking DC or destroying the AOTP outright, but simply hammered them and carried on the war in PA and MD into 1864, Lincoln would have likely lost the Election. Or if Lee had actually been able to strike at Grant at North Anna and actually destroy several corps of AOTP. Or if Lee had come to grips with Meade in late 1864 and beat him.
@@crownprincesebastianjohano7069 Arguably that is true, but it is equally true that Lee's tactics cost the Confederacy the necessary man power to pursue those victories, Lee himself bemoans the lack of men in his writings, the irony that he is responsible for those losses is apprently lost on him.
One would expect that a Lee being the military genius that he supposed to be would understand the idea of conserving resources that one can ill afford to lose.
That being said, fighting a war hoping that the other side capitulates on matters that are not in your control is a desperate gamble.
@@vehx9316 Agreed. Lees strategy did make "some" sense: Capture a major northern city and force a political victory. But that strategy cost him manpower he desperately needed, and also prevented him from providing aid elsewhere. Case in point: Davis wanted Lee to relieve Vicksburg, rather then attack the north.
This: "And the argument of state rights worked against the CSA when they want to marshall manpower and resources" hits the nail on the head. The inherent contradictions of the Confederate ideology became manifest early in the war. You cannot win a war of national survival on the state rights principle because it nullifies the creation of the necessary national unity behind any purpose. And since the Confederate pseudo-nation was founded on a principle of disunion to begin with, the inevitable end would either be disintegration or military despotism. Toward the latter stages of the war as the southern position deteriorated, a couple of the states were threatening to secede from the Confederacy, and members of the Confederate congress toyed with the idea of making Lee dictator for the duration. So both forces were at play albeit to a small degree, but their manifestation exposed the political weakness of the entire Confederacy project that was always going to emerge sooner or later.
@@crownprincesebastianjohano7069 Strategy wins a war and the South never had one. Lee was a local commander with local forces who lost to many men and material that could not be replaced. He might have been a way to win if he operated as part of a southern strategy. So every men lost was well a tragedy, but did nothing to win the war.
I like how Lee wrote after the war that there should be no statues, that there should be the laying down of arms and a returning to the fields to help the country heal. Whatever happened to honoring one's leaders? There's a vast lack of honor now. Every Confederate flag waver who still rebels and actively promotes division is dishonoring their forebears.
Lee didn't win all the battles. in 1862 they lost New Orleans. They lost Fort Henry and Donaldson. They lost at Shiloh. In the east Lee's attacks on McClellan cost him heavy losses and he failed to take Marlvin Hill. (He would repeat this mistake in 1863 at Gettysburg). Lee never again had the manpower he had when he took command. Lee lost at Antietam. He was forced to withdraw and fell back to the Rappahannock line. On Both fronts east and west on 1 January 1863 the writing was on the wall.
Lee wasn’t in charge out west
The writing was hardly on the wall by Jan 1st 1863. I mean, for starters, Lee had just won a lopsided victory at Fredericksburg and would later win his greatest tactical success at Chancellorsville.
And even after Gettysburg and Mine Run, the horrific losses of the Overland Campaign (combined with Sherman stalled in Atlanta) plunged US morale to the lowest point it had been; only Sherman's capture of Atlanta and Sheridan's victories against Early in the Shenandoah Valley rebounded Northern confidence in victory.
ThoughtAssassin is correct. Grant did not win the war. He tied up Lee and lost 50% of his army doing it. But it was the western victories like Atlanta and Mobile and Sheridan cleaning out the Shenandoah Valley that won Lincoln reelection.
I would like to point out that Lee benefited from weak Union leadership. The war should have ended in 1862 if McClennan wasn't so maddingly conversative. Same after Antietam when the Confederate center was breached. Or post-Gettysburg, where the Confederate army was backed up against a flooded and unfordable Potomac, but Mead didn't want to risk his army to finish the war.
Bad Generals on the Union end literally added three and a half years to the conflict.
Antietam is inconclusive. Although I guess you could say it was a strategic victory for the Union forces, they followed up with the big blunder that is Fredericksburg. The writing was hardly on the wall too, with the Battle of Chickamauga for the western theater stalling Sherman. Then the horrific Overland campaign where Union leadership had the best plan to throw men in frontal assaults into fortified positions. Although, the Civil War even at it's inception was doomed to fail, the Federal forces enjoyed a big advantage in material, manpower, and industry. Essentially, things needed to win war on an industrial scale as it was. Outside of Lee having a successful invasion and occupation of Washington and forcing the government to recognize the Confederacy, it was already doomed. The Union can afford to wait, receive major reinforcement, supplies, and artillery. The Confederates were blockaded and had limited capacity for arms production (especially with regards to artillery and reliable shells).
Lots of comments on a range of other reasons (all good in my book)
1. Not putting Nathan Bedford Forrest in charge of the CSA Army of Tennessee
2. Patrick Cleburne elevated to a Longstreet / Jackson counterfoil to Forrest
These two were the best the CSA had in the West .. and neither got anywhere close to leading the key armies in the West
Nathan Bedford Forrest was never in his headquarters as he was always personally leading raids therefore he almost never communicated with his peers. Shared intelligence and was always complaining about the "meanness" of his superior officers whenever they gave him orders. He didn't win a single battle of note.
Forrest and Cleburne were not cut out for senior command, and they lacked both the staffs and subordinates to replicate their low-level tactical successes.
@@jonathanburmeister1946 OK .. no battle of note? interesting .. he knew how to concentrate superior numbers when outnumbered at key points, that qualifies him
So Bragg, JE Johnston, AS Johnston, Hood all were really good or really bad generals, what do you think?
@@michaelmccabe3079 And the Western CSA higher ups were very good were they? .. How much worse could they have been vs Braxton Bragg or L Polk or Hardee or Hood
Really how much worse?
Both thought outside the box that what Less & Jackston did .. thought outside the box and rejected the norms of the day
Lee stated that when the odds were against you, you had to take risks ..
No CSA western higher ups had the brains to even think of this let alone to act on it ..
Irish, even, behaved in ways marketed as owning NBF and all his possessions.
This did not answer the why question of the title, just a list of events.
Oddly enough I was wondering the same thing and was scrolling down to see more comments like this but I guess only me, the people who like your comment, and you seem to notice this 🤣 it’s a food video… but I would recommend to change the title
they were only winning battles in virginia, they were losing literally everywhere else. And both times the south attempted a major offensive in virginia, they lost. they were never able to achieve any strategic objectives in the east other than stall the union advance on richmond.
Is there a part 4?! How did it end! I am loving this
Title says “why did the confederates lose despite big military victories” fails to mention how they actually lost 🤦♂️
If you look at it from a moral point of view , their cause was unjust !
Temporarily yes it is uniquely unjust. But the US like all massive empires will not be around forever and is showing its age. When it becomes dismantled or no longer a superpower the CSA's cause will no longer be looked back on as uniquely unjust. Similarly to the way the modern western world of social democracy all looks back on Lincoln's ideology of liberal nationalism as racist and evil and we all morally gloss over that and talk about the Union as if they were socialist revolutionaries or modern liberals or even conservatives or any ideology any modern person could stomach. A modern person of any political persuasion would be hard pressed to explain the differences between the liberal nationalism of that era and Nazism. Based on my studies of the subject I do see the southern cause as wrongheaded but not by any means uniquely so.
Which one?
The rebel cause was unjust !
In the north near Boston there's a purple area what is that?
Here to ask the same thing
I think that was the battle of Schrute Farm.
This video doesn't even answer the question that it sets out to answer
Click bait! Lol.
The south played checkers(tactical, winning battles).
The north played chess(strategic, logistics, attrition).
If the Confederacy lost for a single reason, it is that it didn't have a single significant ally willing to provide either material, financial or military support.
Mexico couldn't help us, because France.
This video didn't answer the question in its own title and I see it was rhetorical, for some reason... thankfully, the comments section has provided answers.
I'm English and we weren't taught the finer details at school, only the broader points, to this intense period of US history. We obviously had our own Civil War two centuries earlier here in England and I learnt more about both those conflicts from my Grandfather (who was a historian). Thankyou comments section.
Because to win the war, you have to do more than win a few battles.
Excluding fort sieges, port and town seizures, and skirmishes, the battle victory count is largely Confederate victories. It was more than a few and that's were vastly larger population and resources come into play. George Washington only won a few battles and secured victory to found a nation.
@@SecNotSureSirIs it though? In with the West, with the exclusion of Chickamauga, the Union Army thoroughly beat the Confederates at their own game along the Mississippi River and the surrounding flood plains. General Thomas even decisively destroyed the Army of the Tennessee during the Battle of Nashville; that's not exaggeration. It was DESTROYED.
And also...battles are important to wars, but they aren't the only deciding factor. I noticed you took into account George Washington; he wasn't the only general winning victories against the British during the Revolutionary War.
Something the Union Army and earlier Continental Army had in common was that they had an idea of the big picture. The Union actually had a strategy beyond 'kill yanks and get a cease fire'; blockade the South, cut it in two via the Mississippi, and use the braided network of rivers sourcing from it to quickly transport forces inland, divvying CSA forces into easy-to-handle pockets and destroy them.
The Continental Army, after French intervention, had a strategy too: take the British away from the cities where their logistics would then falter, and allow them to starve. Then, use the terrain you know to out-manuever them and commit to multiple pincer movements, turning British forces into pockets against rivers or creeks that you can then destroy.
Lee knew that that if he split his force in the face of Grant, the way he did with previous Union generals, he would likely get chewed up and spit out. The title suggests there were few or no Union victories on the battlefield. I can count a dozen without even straining.
Wow. More great stuff! The graphics are so great, & storytelling is so clear. Well done. Looking forward to the next installment.
In war it isn't about who wins the most, it's about who wins last.
The South won more but lost the war. Lesson learned. American Revolution? Vietnam?
The Tigray war (2020-2022) in Ethiopia is a great example of a larger power outlasting a smaller and more efficient enemy by use of raw resources and human capital, both the TPLF in Tigray and the CSA in the South were able to obtain many victories in the initial stages of their respective wars, however as the war dragged on the larger nation that they were fighting against (The Ethiopian government for the TPLF and the USA for the CSA) had greater resources and could more easily replenish losses which the smaller rebelling army simply couldn't' endure.
Another factor is that the TPLF and CSA were both blockaded either by land or sea by the larger power they were fighting against, and were not able to properly trade or obtain important materials needed to sustain their war machines, your army can only do so much when they don't even have enough metal to make bullets or enough food to properly nourish their soldiers.
On the other hand, George Washington managed to win the American Revolution despite being heavily outmanned, outgunned, and being cut off by a naval blockade.
@aaronfleming9426 That is true. However, he also had the support of Spain and France, which were two of Britain's most powerful rivals at the time.
We can see something similar happen in the Vietnam war where the USSR and China gave major aid to the North Vietnamese to fight against the Americans.
The CSA and TPLF also had no major foreign backing, and due to this, all of their victories and advantages became meaningless once the larger force they were fighting against became properly organized.
@@RemberReachYou're not wrong, and in fact I"m going to completely defer to your knowledge of the TPLF. But it's also worth noting that in the American Revolution, Spain and France did not join the USA's effort until well into the third year of the war. Until that time, the colonists had to fend for themselves and prove that they were worth supporting.
After the disasters in Canada and at Long Island, George Washington made a drastic change in US strategy. He stopped going on the offensive, and took up a policy of avoiding pitched battle unless the odds were overwhelmingly in his favor. That led to the decisisve victory at Saratoga, after which the French decided to support the US.
Lee never learned the lesson Washington learned at Long Island; never engineered a Saratoga, and thus never won foreign support.
@@aaronfleming9426The French army, the french navy, the french money and the french. dutch and others arming the americans against the Brits won that war.
@@TorianTammasThat's true. But George Washington convinced those nations that he was a winning bet. Why didn't the Confederacy model it's strategy after Washington's?
The population advantage, and industrial might of the North was insurmountable. Add to that the strangulation of the south by the Federal naval blockade.
yes southern leadership was criminal to fight that war
At 13:50 why is part of Massachusetts purple, like confederate occupied?
I think that was the battle of Schrute Farm.
Battles don’t win wars. Ending ability and will to make war of your opponent is what wins.
Unless you win early...
awesome video. love all the map detail. Im from Canada and loved how you put the history into something that any other country can learn about in a very understandable version. Thanks
I'm so glad that the first battle shown was one that George Henry Thomas not only was in, but commanded. Thomas was probably one of the best generals the Union had. IIRC, he never lost a battle he took part in, though he was only in total command of two. He had a great strategic mind and tactical sense. He turned down promotions several times due to feeling he couldnt meet the standards. He was an outstanding field officer and I think it speaks volumes that he chose to stay at the rank he felt best served the Union Army rather than use his victories to build a public or political career. He even desteoyed his wartime correspondence and refused to write memoirs because he "did not want his life hawked in print for the curious.".
"never lost a battle he took part in"... I know he was the Rock of Chickamauga, but his side still lost the battle.
@@sakonaga1 My statement stands. The Confederates won the Battle of Chickamauga, but Thomas sure as hell didn't lose.
He left the battlefield without accomplishing his mission...ergo he lost. Surely we can agree that it's possible to do everything right and still lose.@@DieNextInLINE
Thomas was definitely one of the best leaders the Union had.
He basically saved the Army of the Cumberland, if his wartime correspondents survived, he would be more popular than Grant.
Confedarates lost because Lee was inept and his early victories were in Confederate territories and the Union troops were lead either by demotivated dinasaurs or turncoats..When the Union forces were ultimately led by competent Generals such as Mead, Grant, Sherman and Burnside the results were there for all to see..Lee's incompetence showed up fully at Gettysburg where he brushed aside all suggestions by Longstreet and caught in his own hubris made an idiotic charge towards the Union forces.. first assaulting the high positioned dug in Union forces on left and right flanks and the on the third day marching his forces over 3/4 of mile open ground towards the Union lines, obstructed by fences and stone reinforced ridges.. What an idiot he was..losing a huge number of his army.
Thank you for the informative video regarding some of the big events of the Civil War in 1862. The video wasn't exactly what I expected specifically, but I enjoyed it all the same.
God be with you out there, everybody. ✝️ :)
Confederate commanders had a bad habit of trying to win battles in glorious warrior displays and losing most of their men in the process. A society with martial tradition makes a better soldier, not necessarily a better commander.
I recall the words of my grandfather in regards to wars. “Battles don’t win wars, politics do.” The South lacked the industry or manpower to win from the very beginning. They needed foreign allies for manpower and resources, and they failed to get them. Without those allies the South never stood a chance. They might have won some major battles, but they lost in the area that mattered, the politics.
Well, war is little but an extension of politics.
That's a self-contradictory position.
Since the south lacked insustry and manpower, it should have avoided pitched battle as much as possible, and attempted to draw Union armies into traps where they could be struck politically devastating blows.
As it happened, they squandered their resources in ill-fated invasions of Kentucky, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and - to a lesser extent - Missouri.
@@aaronfleming9426 War is a contradiction in itself. But you have to consider the flipside. You can't really JUST wait for your enemy to come to you. Your enemy will counter to that strategy. Not in reality, not always. And it's hard to keep entire armies mobilized, doing much of nothing but maybe building defenses, sitting with their thumbs up their behind on the defensive when you're in a war for survival of what you see is your way of life.
The Union could also out-wait the Confederacy. They had time on their side. The South did not. The South HAD to force a ceasefire as soon as possible and they knew this, for the most part. They couldn't survive without their imports being blockaded. They had ALL of their men off to war with few in the factories, what little they had.
So your options are sit and wait around, still draining resource by the day (food, sickness, training etc) accomplishing nothing of meaning unless they enemy plays into your hand, the momentum and incentive of the war is no longer in your hands like it is during an offensive. Where you're forcing the enemy to act. The enemy isn't going to just walk into your traps. If men aren't dying in hoards, the Union doesn't have much incentive to come to terms. My main point is, things are never so simple as what hindsight may lead you to think. And it takes two to tango/make war. Every action you take, instills a reaction in your enemy and vice versa. The Union was forced to meet those thrusts into their states, delaying their own plans and/or compromising their effectiveness by drawing men and resources off etc.
@@jonny-b4954The very idea of drawing the enemy into traps implies more than sitting on one's thumbs.
George Washington was a master of what I'm talking about. After Long Island he avoided the main British army, striking only exposed portions of it. He was active in looking for and creating those opportunities. Crossing the Delaware River at night to attack Trenton was of course the most famous incident.
Contrast Washington with Lee. Lee skillfully outmaneuvered Pope and created a stunning victory at 2nd Bull Run. That gave him more operational room to invade Maryland, with a variety of objectives. Unfortunately for Lee, most of the objectives he was hoping for didn't pan out. He did, however, create the opportunity to capture Harpers Ferry. And if he had retreated at that point, he would have scored an enormous political blow against Lincoln.
But Lee didn't understand Washington's methods. Or perhaps his pride simply got the better of him, and his "honor" wouldn't allow him to leave Maryland without fighting a major battle. That was a colossal blunder, and almost any general besides McCellan would have destroyed him then and there. As it was, it's exemplary of his penchant for jumping into bloodbaths instead of stewarding his resources.
the south was equally incompetent in the field of diplomacy as well.
The South's diplomacy at the time was that Europe needed Southern cotton for their texitile industry but they overestimated their worth and basically attempted to blackmail Europe into helping them out by diberately not exporting cotton.
And Europe predictably did not react well to blackmail.
I’d never heard Davis’s response to the emancipation proclamation before. Very interesting how popular the fear of servile insurrection was, which dispels notions that the south “died of states rights” or some gargabe
Was slavery a key plank of the war ? - yes
Was it the "only" reason for CSA fighting the war? - no
Major General Patrick Cleburne's letter to Jeff Davis advocating for the freeing of the slaves in CSA in the summer of 1864
"It is said that slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties."
You do know landless whites didn't have a right to vote or own land until 1920 universal suffrage act, right? Landless whites were part of that servile revolt aristocrats like Davis feared.
Education is important, you should try it.
"States Rights" is still a baseline terrible retort. Yes - the rights to own people as property. Full stop. Thank you for your time.
Which is why the confederacy had a significant portion of volunteers who were not slave owners themselves (if i remember correctly its about 70% of the confederate army). Many people were concerned that granting freedom would at best result in a servile insurrection and at worse result in a race war that would see whites as the new lower class.
This is why many confederate soldiers subjectively thought they were fighting for their rights.
@@jamesmunn576 States rights are a hallmark of the formation of the USA. Of course the North had turned more turned federalism and a federal state under the Republican party so expansion could take place, expansion of the railroads and more federals revenues could be obtained
They also had huge military catastrophes. Shiloh 1862, fort donnelson+ henry 1862, antietam 1862, malvern hill 1862, perryville 1862, stones river 1863, vicksburg 1863, gettysburg 1863, spotsylvania courthouse 1864, 2nd franklin 1864, petersburg 1865...eqch one of these were disastrous for the cause.
They lost as many battles as they won, and often only win tactical victories while the union won strategic victories.
The myth that the south lost cuz of gettysburg or small other battles is nonsense.
Lee himself didn't see Gettysburg as an unmitigated disaster, just a minor setback.
It lead to the disastrous overland campaign, which culminated with the petersburg siege. He lost 1/3 of his army and half of his division commanders and brigade commanders were casualties. @barbiquearea
@@zoanth4 Hindsight is 20/20. Yes in the long run Gettysburg really effed things up for Lee. But in the direct aftermath, it wasn't seen as that big of a disaster.
Even though Lee took huge casualties, he felt he would have lost just as many men if he had stayed in Virginia and fought Union forces around Richmond. Also taking the war into the North secured massive supplies, and damaged the Army of the Potomac so badly that for they were out of commission for six months.
Almost won Shilo
Grant almost was relieved for Vicksburg
Almost all the Confederate victories were in Virginia. They are the most famous battles. But outside Virginia, the Union won most of the battles and occupied much of the Confederacy. Which is why the Union won the War.
I love your videos! However, in this 23 minute video, you put 5 ad breaks in it. That's extreme, don't you think? I'm fine with 2 or 3 ad breaks, but an ad every 4 minutes or so, is on par with cable television. Not cool, man.
Wait.... Is this really a topic? LoL!!! The North had a HUGE advantage. Many advantages. This should be entitled " how did the South win so many Victories against a stronger opponent"
I wouldn't say LOL to a nation built on supporting slavery 🤡
Took time to build the union army
The federal army was small and large numbers of officers went south
Almost was starting from scratch like the south
Great video ! 😄
Excellent commentary, amusingly and impressively delivered.
Add logistics: The South's railroad was not unified like the North's. Railroads in the South were different gauge (width) one state from another (state's rights, you know). Thus, material had to be unloaded from one train and loaded onto another train and that took large blocks of time, delaying the arrival of men and material.
Considering the enormous difference in manpower and industrial output between the North and South, in the long term a northern victory was a foregone conclusion. The South's best chance at winning lay in trying to force a decisive victory early on, while they still had the advantage in leadership, experience and morale. When the early attempts to take Washington failed, the South had to pin their hopes on either breaking the Northern will to fight despite the North's overwhelming advantages, or drawing some third party like France or Great Britain into the war.
The only way to have a strategy that you can execute with the forces you have. The South had never a strategy but local armies with local vattles and generals that never saw the whole ir firmulated any strategy for the South.
@@TorianTammas Considering how terribly the union performed during the first few battles of the war, I don't think the attempt to take DC was completely unrealistic.
I will agree that in general the South's grand strategy became more muddled and ad hoc (albeit at that point I would argue that the war was already more or less decided).
However, in fairness I also have to point out that the strategy that ultimately won the North the war, attrition and blockade, had been widely mocked by northerners when it was first proposed.
Romantic ideas about wars being decided by pluck, elan and national pride rather than nerdy things like logistics and industrial production were still mainstream.
Little known fact: the stars and bars flag was the first ever Official Participation Trophy in the US.
I think its adorable that they're so proud of it. Daaw
Little known fact: the "stars and bars" was the first national flag of the Confederacy, NOT the battle flag that we more commonly see.
@@jacksons1010 hey woah action Jackson, don't shoot up a school over it. I never said it was anything other than a participation trophy, which it is.
true
Another factor was one a lot of people get wrong about war is that, even victory is still a costly affair. The South was losing men and material with just about every engagement.
Case in point, at Chancellorsville, Lee's forces lost 1,600 men in killed, 9,000 wounded and over 2,000 captured or MIA, discounting the loss of Stonewall Jackson.
Quite simply, even Lee's "perfect battle" was a bloodbath.
I always think artillery is overlooked. The csa had very few good devoted artillery officers. They had a few and they bad some good artillery units. But you bave to be trained a long time to be competent. The south stopped having the time to train them, Gettysburg is a great example of that. Lee attempted a mass bombardment even though his senior artillery officers told him their men were not up to the task. They tried it anyway and these unexperienced teams proceeded to rush and miss every single shot. The officer who told him not to do it quit the CSA army and went back to Union occupied new Orleans to go back civilian life of carriage making.
Simple matter of manpower and technology superiority. The South had the resources to fight for 2 years. Because of Lee they lasted for 4 years. But most of their victories happened in the first 2 years. The South began losing Generals, the Northern Generals got better. Once Grant finally took over the writing was on the wall. Lee was still the better General, but Grant was a bulldog and knew how to beat him.
How did the US defeat the British during the revolutionary war then?
British were fighting an unpopular War, the British people considered the Americans cousins, the Americans had the home ground and used it to our advantage, and we can't underestimate the impact of France coming in on our side. Maybe we would have eventually won without them, but I'm glad we didn't have to find out.
@@smacky101 The British could not bring the full weight of their military force to bear upon the United States. Not only did they have to ship troops across an ocean to sustain the fight in America, they also had a global empire to defend so their forces were divided protecting other colonies, particularly the Sugar Islands. None of these considerations hampered the United States in its war against the Southern insurrection. It could keep putting more military pressure upon the Confederacy without end, the far greater industrial power of the Northern states was immediately available to supply the armies at interstate distances, facilitated by an extensive railroad network and increasingly by riverine transport as more territory was liberated. The national government was able to do to the South what the British could not do to America.
@@smacky101 We don't like to admit it, but a lot of it was France.
If you go to Versailles, you'll see a nice portrait of the French General accepting the British surrender at Yorktown. Washington is depicted as an observer.
Of course, this was made, in part, as royal propaganda, but it is not really that far off the reality.
Yorktown became a trap instead of a retreat because the French showed up instead of the British fleet.
People always forget how much Spain also contributed as far as money and supplies there would not have been a US without both France and Spain.@@BladeStar-uq6xe
Also, how did Mordor end up losing The War of Northern Aggression? They had so much early success! They were unstoppable! Robert E. Saruman didn't even own slaves! Ulysses S Gandalf was a tyrant!
I tend to be hard on McClellan but there needs to be context. At that point it was more important to not suffer a heavy loss rather than get a win. The intelligence he got was consistently overstating enemy strength by at least 30-40 percent. I’d be a bit timid to attack as well.
Hes a slave that would be marketed as autistic.
i read many times mcclellan didn't have the will to fight.
It's also important to note that McClellan was relying on a railroad detective for his intelligence instead of using cavalry - the branch of the army specifically trained to perform reconnaissance. Even more context shows that McClellan repeatedly inflated the already-inflated "intelligence" he was getting from Pinkerton.
Then there's just logic: If the Union could only give McClellan an army of 100,000, how on earth would the Confederacy, with all its economic and demographic disadvantages, be able to field and army twice that size? That's sheer nonsense.
@@aaronfleming9426 Excellent points. McClellan knew - or should have known - that his intelligence was faulty. Except Little Mac had to micromanage everything in his army. In some ways that was a good thing. But he refused to believe Army Intelligence, didn't properly scout and on numerous occasions just artificially inflated the numbers provided from those he designated to get the intelligence. In the end I don't think he wanted to fight anymore unless he knew he ad such an overwhelming advantage that it would be impossible to lose.
@@aaronfleming9426 It was nonsense yeah. McClellan spent months polishing and training his army before the campaign and was proud of them to the point where he refused to put them at any significant risk. That's like someone building a fancy racing car but then refusing to drive it lest it receive a scratch. It was nice that he wasn't reckless but he took it too far and defeated the entire point of being an army commander. Ultimately, his 'caution' resulted in thousands more American lives being lost than would have if he'd let his soldiers do their job and seize Richmond early in the war.
Though the English were favouring the Confederacy, the majority of Canadians were on the side of the Union, supplying it with agricultural products, a lot of horses and a few tens of thousands of soldiers.
1. First the South defeated beween 1815 and 1830! The Ohio, Indiana and Illinois were populated from Tenneessee, Kentucky, North Carolina, Maryland, Virginia and Delaware in majority. The Central states (Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York) gave to these 3 states a lfew people and New England gave very few and mainly in Ohio. The South lost a lot of white people to the North and mainly the Mid West.
2. The foreign background changed bigger than the Southern people thought. United Kingdom forbade the slavery system in 1836 and France forbade in 1848. A lot of American countries forbade the slavery system too, as Mexico did after the independency.
2.1. The future Confederacy lost any ally from the Navy powers as UK and France.
2.2. After the Mexican American War the new territory from Mexico as California, New Mexico were without slavery system. California became free state in 1850 and New Mexico (territory) was PROUNIONST from 1861!
2.3. Texas was without slavery system under the Mexican authority and the slavery system began after 1836 (almost 0 to 150 000 slaves in 1860) and the Texan slaves trade and the other Deep South slave states assisted the border states Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, Delaware (+West Virginia) to decrease the slave population %, so the plantation system effect decreased in the border states to become POUNIONIST majority in these slave states.
2.4. The UK diplomacy began to incease the alternative cotton producing territorries. For example the Consulates of UK in the Turkish Port cities began to give free of charge cotton seeds to the agricultural producers from 1858!!!!! The wool and flax textil industry was behind of the cotton textil industry and the cotton shortage assisted them.
3. Industrialisation was strong in the North and the most railroads were built in the North. The agricultural machin invests as the McCormick harvester machins helped the food producing farmers to produce food without slavery system work! Plowing with a horse, sowing with a seeder with a horse and harvesting with a horse, and the farmer alone is enough for it! The North had no problem conscripting so many soldiers, because food production did not decrease, and the North was even able to export food abroad. South the people had food shortage with big inflation.
4. The European immigrants went to the Northern states and a some border states as the German and Irish people to increase the Northern population. The North Estern people and the European immigrants changed St. Louis strong Prounionist city and Missouri to be Prounionist majority state.
5. The South the original 7 states and the 4 newer (11) states were not united a lot of people was Prounionists. The Confederacy had big territories where Prounionist people lived and about 100 000 volounter white soldiers fought for the union only 31000 from Tenneessee. North Alabama hid 10 000 Confederacy deserters. The Northern Cooperheads did not create territorries with gerilla fighters and volunters did not go to the Confederacy army! Border states gave volunter soldiers to the Confederacy and there were gerilla actions but the majority of the Border states gave the soldiers to the Union!
6. After 1862 Antietham the Colored people and the Exslaves got possibilty to fight for their freedom! So about 300 000 Colored soldiers came to fight untill 1865.
The confederacy was trying to fight as A traditional war when they should have been fighting as A guerilla war.
Guerilla war was impossible (hard atleast ) In the 1800s there wasnt really much to do
@@zombiefirebot6066 It wasn't feasible when the whole point of their secession was over slavery. The Confederate Army wasn't only fighting the Union, but also to protect plantations and prevent slaves from escaping. You can't do that while also having to fight a guerilla war.
@@barbiquearea i do NOT know how to respond
Guerrilla wars still need large conventional military support. IE napoleonic Spain and russia
No
If the south went guerilla what Sherman did to Georgia would have been done all,through the south
Look where southern irregulars operated and how bloodly that was burning of farms and executions
Didn’t have this touchy-feely we have today
Actually, the North won almost everything in the Missouri campaign after Shiloh. So most battles were actually won by the North.
The South mainly won a few passive battles in the east. Had they lost there, Richmond would have fallen and then the war would have been over more quickly.
There were several reasons why the North prevailed.
1. More men,
2. More space,
3. Better economy and foreign trade,
4. Naval domination,
5. More progressive political (not just regarding slavery) agenda.
6. Better, well established, administrative bodies,
7. International recognition
All that together it is not surprising the Union won, but more surprising that it took four years to win it.
A strange question, since their generally poor organisation almost lost them the war even before they achieved those big victories.
I saw a video where someone said they lost because they had a smaller population and were less industrialized. But before any of that came into play, the string of often embarrasing defeats that led the federates to Richmond was caused by horrendously poor judgement and discipline in all ranks of the confederate army.
The union could survive defeats. The south could not.
When Tennessee was lost so doomed the Cause. It became a war of attrition that the south couldn’t match.
As a smaller, lower population, less industrialized nation on the defensive... the confederacy had one chance at victory - kill union troops at 2:1 ratios in defensive battles and wise retreats until the North gave up. Instead they too often tried to attack to break the Union's spirit, and far to often either broke even or died in bad exchanges even if they held the battlefield.
Thank you, Sir, for a wise comment. It's astonishing how many people continue to parrot the failed strategy that lost the war.
@@aaronfleming9426 The tale of the confederacy is Pyrrhic victory after Pyrrhic victory until they had too few troops. They had a few generals who understood that, like Johnston, but much like Sherman early in the war (who was labeled mentally ill for his prediction of a long, bloody war) they just weren't listened too.
And they fought the war 20 years too late. By the time they fought, England and Europe were firmly anti-slavery and there were alternatives to southern cotton, and the Confederacy just didn't have the support of foreign powers like the USA did in the Revolutionary War.
@@lord6617Again, thank you for a sane comment and your recognition that Johnston had the correct strategic outlook :)
I believe Sherman was considered mentally ill for believing he needed 200,000 troops to secure Kentucky. He was melting down at just about the same time that George Thomas was destroying Felix Zollicofer's army with about 4,500 men and Grant was capturing Fort Donelson with about 20,000. Sherman accurately predicted the length of the war and clearly saw Vicksburg and Chattanooga as the key strategic points, but beyond that I cannot consider him a good general.
The Confederation lost because of supply chain shortages.
They lost because it wasn’t in god‘s plan
The confederates were much better in battle but didn't have even a fraction of the resources that the Union had. For every 1 confederate soldier there were 4 union soldiers, and the confederates still beat them for more than half of the war. The Union had the advantage of having the bankers on their side while the confederates had to rely on heart.
Incorrect. The confederates may have had better generals at the beginning and this caused the success at first. The everyday confederate soldier was not better at battle.
@@TimisTrilipides-cl3xr Considering they won massive victories despite being a nation that was just formed and barely having an established governance, always being low on supplies and resources and still overcoming a numerically and more well supplied nation on many instances would imply they were better in battle.
@@DKeysblog at most only about 1 in 5 southerners had slaves. And of all southerners the more wealth a person had the less likely they were to be in the military.
So it's safe to say that the VAST majority of Confederate soldiers were not slave owners.
@@calebbearup4282 And yet they still fought for a country that explicitly referred to themselves as "the slave-owning states".
I'm not taking u.s. history lessons from anyone named Abdur
The bad guys always lose eventually.
That comment is truer than you realize give the fact that history is written by the victor. If true South won, your comment would be just as true, because the history books would view the winning side as the “good guys”. There has never been a side of any conflict that they were like “yeah we are evil and we know it”
Everybody loses eventually.
0:16 eastern massachusetts was occupied by the confederacy in 1862?
For the first 3 years of the war, Lee was a practical commander that took very few gambles. However at Gettysburg, his ego got the better of him. A strategic lateral move on day three, would’ve left him with another victory, and another day to fight again. Pickets charge was pure hubris. His troops completely exposed to every type of fire, a one mile march, and an attempted attack on the center? Pure madness! And the resulting slaughter confirmed that.
This is embarrassing clickbait where the narrative doesn’t match the title’s intent. Far from being instructive, you’ve completely lost the viewer with a detailed and emotional retelling of the battles without remaining true to any hope of an structured narrative that supports the title.
This is part 3 of his very educational retelling of how the Civil War actually went down.
Calm down and watch 2 previous episodes too
@Dr.Akakia sorry, made other plans
( a structured )
Sad to see the South go down. The Union should have respected the wishes of the Southern folk to seceed, instead of starting there war of aggression and inposing there will by force on the South.
I do agree, however u committed a grammatical error, to wit. You utilize the word THERE, which is completely INcorrect, the word there refers to location, the correct word is THEIR which is a possessive word to express the situation
This supports the completely mythological idea that the south would have been content to sit where it was, without western expansion.
Except that was not what the south wanted. Said so. Tried to destabilize Mexico with the dream of turning it from free to slave. Under their control.
There would have been war over today's US Southwest if the south had been allowed to secede. The CSA constitution _did have_ provisions for new states and that wasn't just boilerplate.
This is the 19th century we are talking about. Of course there would have been wars and lots of them had the south been allowed to separate. This is one reason why insurrections are met with war. The idea is to have one war, not a bunch of them.
Sorry, this is fantasy. This is the 19th century. Had the south been allowed to go its own way, the two sides would have been at war soon enough over the US Southwest. That's the way politics worked in those days. In the actual history we have, even the US managed to build up an empire in places like Cuba and the Philippines.
This war was, one way or another, inevitable. Had the south succeeded, peacefully or not, we'd be talking about two, three, maybe five more wars. And those would have had Europeans helping both sides. Not a good result for America as a whole. The one thing we _did_ manage to do was to keep Europe out of the North American continent since 1776. With a south going its own way, that inevitably would not have worked out.
1) you’re defending slavers.
2) the south attacked many union forts before Lincoln called for volunteers.
Confederate battle flag 🏳️
Right! A tea towel, not even a flag really.
Unironically this was a problem that caused the confederacy to change their flag