Why did The Confederates Lose Despite Their Big Military Victories? - The American Civil War (1862)
video description
Date: 2023-12-21
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 18
knowledgia
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.
reply
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.
reply
Spongebrain97
I completed my student teaching recently for US history and something I really hammered into the students was what led up to the Civil War and also how the south routinely handicapped itself. It repeatedly rejected internal improvements which in turn prevented many cities from booming. Without many massive cities they lagged behind on industrialization meaning less railroads, telegraph poles, food crops, and of course no immigrants who boosted the population.
All of this was because the south chose to pin their life savings on slavery which was morally evil and economically held them back from growing. Essentially they sacrificed long term gains in favor of short term results
reply
I completed my student teaching recently for US history and something I really hammered into the students was what led up to the Civil War and also how the south routinely handicapped itself. It repeatedly rejected internal improvements which in turn prevented many cities from booming. Without many massive cities they lagged behind on industrialization meaning less railroads, telegraph poles, food crops, and of course no immigrants who boosted the population.
All of this was because the south chose to pin their life savings on slavery which was morally evil and economically held them back from growing. Essentially they sacrificed long term gains in favor of short term results
reply
KangaKucha
Mates, except for battles around Virginia (one being a Pennsylvania invasion, hence Gettysburg, the war was 1 sided for the Union over the CSA! Sure the last battle was CSA victory, like Jackson win against the British at New Orleans matters? (British take Mobile instead)
Hell wish Britain (and maybe the rest of Europe following them) should have sided and supported the Union, not CSA they roughy did and got in trouble for under Grant presidency, the fools!
Wish if so, then the CSA would be like the 2nd revolution war as the Union would be a dominon after defeat in War of 1812. Work in progress!
reply
Mates, except for battles around Virginia (one being a Pennsylvania invasion, hence Gettysburg, the war was 1 sided for the Union over the CSA! Sure the last battle was CSA victory, like Jackson win against the British at New Orleans matters? (British take Mobile instead)
Hell wish Britain (and maybe the rest of Europe following them) should have sided and supported the Union, not CSA they roughy did and got in trouble for under Grant presidency, the fools!
Wish if so, then the CSA would be like the 2nd revolution war as the Union would be a dominon after defeat in War of 1812. Work in progress!
reply
knowledgia
It's simple, the Confederates victories weren't that important.
They weren't game changing like the Union victories at Fort Henry and Donaldson, Shiloh, Antietam and Vicksburg. Confederate victories like Second Bull Run, Fredericksburg, and Chancellorsville didn't change the outcome of the war. They simply delayed the inevitable. And the Confederates suffered huge casualties they couldn't afford.
I believe the Confederates shouldn't have fought the war in a conventional way. They should have fought in a guerilla war instead. Then they had a better chance.
reply
It's simple, the Confederates victories weren't that important.
They weren't game changing like the Union victories at Fort Henry and Donaldson, Shiloh, Antietam and Vicksburg. Confederate victories like Second Bull Run, Fredericksburg, and Chancellorsville didn't change the outcome of the war. They simply delayed the inevitable. And the Confederates suffered huge casualties they couldn't afford.
I believe the Confederates shouldn't have fought the war in a conventional way. They should have fought in a guerilla war instead. Then they had a better chance.
reply
zoanth4
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.
reply
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.
reply
mrme8521
The South lost for the same reason they started the war, and the same reason they'll loose a civil war in the future. Black people.
The emancipation proclamation broke the framework that their society was built upon. In the next iteration of the civil war, the battle ground will take place mostly in the south again. And guess where most black people will live.
reply
The South lost for the same reason they started the war, and the same reason they'll loose a civil war in the future. Black people.
The emancipation proclamation broke the framework that their society was built upon. In the next iteration of the civil war, the battle ground will take place mostly in the south again. And guess where most black people will live.
reply
knowledgia
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.
reply
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.
reply
kyler_jonathon
The Southern states were obsessed with massive and dramatic victories, no real strategy at all, which allowed our boys in blue to hold firm, and throw massive lines of themselves at the enemy, while Grant was being called a butcher and drunk, he was in fact a genius for utilizing the North's superior numbers to overwhelm the Rebels.
reply
The Southern states were obsessed with massive and dramatic victories, no real strategy at all, which allowed our boys in blue to hold firm, and throw massive lines of themselves at the enemy, while Grant was being called a butcher and drunk, he was in fact a genius for utilizing the North's superior numbers to overwhelm the Rebels.
reply
barbiquearea
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.
reply
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.
reply
blockmasterscott
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.
reply
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.
reply
Zorro9129
It says a lot that a bunch of farmers, outnumbered and outsupplied on every front, still managed to wage a valiant fight for almost five years. We must remember those who gave their lives on both sides and respect their memory so that their descendants can know peace.
reply
It says a lot that a bunch of farmers, outnumbered and outsupplied on every front, still managed to wage a valiant fight for almost five years. We must remember those who gave their lives on both sides and respect their memory so that their descendants can know peace.
reply
yo_hippie1326
The South possessed more skilled generals than the North; however, despite this advantage, they faced challenges in winning the Civil War due to limitations in manpower and resources, preventing them from sustaining a prolonged conflict.
reply
The South possessed more skilled generals than the North; however, despite this advantage, they faced challenges in winning the Civil War due to limitations in manpower and resources, preventing them from sustaining a prolonged conflict.
reply
theodoresmith5272
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.
reply
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.
reply
geistlos333
It's a pretty good video. though you referred to Gen. George McClellan as George at one point and that was a bit jarring. Generally it's customary to refer to generals by their last name. . No biggie though.
reply
It's a pretty good video. though you referred to Gen. George McClellan as George at one point and that was a bit jarring. Generally it's customary to refer to generals by their last name. . No biggie though.
reply
knowledgia
Just so you fools are aware Democrats aren t northerners nor Republicans confederates. Parties never switched just their sales pitch for power. Democrats still chasing after your guns and blacks since 1800s
reply
Just so you fools are aware Democrats aren t northerners nor Republicans confederates. Parties never switched just their sales pitch for power. Democrats still chasing after your guns and blacks since 1800s
reply
davewhitley5612
They lost because the north bolstered the army ranks with Immigrants like they want to do now andlet immigrants be cops and join the military and already we have a constitutional p[olice problem
reply
They lost because the north bolstered the army ranks with Immigrants like they want to do now andlet immigrants be cops and join the military and already we have a constitutional p[olice problem
reply
lanebatts26
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
reply
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
reply
galaxyn3214
So when does the General McClellan statue get torn down? He might have helped the south as much as any other Dixie leader.
reply
So when does the General McClellan statue get torn down? He might have helped the south as much as any other Dixie leader.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
