The Single Greatest Obstacle To The South

[williamlayton]

What, in your opinion, was the single greatest obstacle the South faced in the war?
Was it Rails, Navy, Manpower, Manufacturing, Strategy or what.
I think one of the greatest was their flank.
Blessings

[BUGEYE]

old Sam Houston tried to warn them that there would be war and that they would lose.
he knew that the south would be out-gunned.
the south was weak in every catagory.

[subdjoe]

Logistics.

[SHOOTALL]

lack of raw materials .

[us920669]

You can just about spin the bottle - they were deficient in every measurable area.  The incompetence in Richmond was amazing.

I think the single greatest factor was the inability to secure European intervention - is that what you meant by flanks?  Mason and Slidell were no doubt fine men, but Mason seemed like a course, tobacco-spitting ruffian.  Slidell refused to use an interpreter in Paris and his French was so bad people were appalled or even insulted (this from memory but I think it's correct).

[Dixie Dude]

It was a multitude.
1) Fewer railroads with various gauges.
2) Less population thus less manpower and soldiers.
3) Only one rolling steel mill for steel plate, and that was in Richmand.  Iron ore wasn't discovered near Birmingham until after the war. 
4) Fewer deep water ships.  North had a larger navy.  The south did have lots of riverboats, as they relied on river transportation more than railroads to ship cotton out from the major seaports. 
5) Military did not have a central organization. 
6) South relied on their agriculture for money, not manufacturing.

The north saw that if they made a blockade of the southern export ports, it would cut their supply of money and munitions from Europe.  That is why they took Charleston and New Orleans first.  They were two of the biggest exporting cities.  The second portion of the north's plan was to split the south down the middle by taking the Mississippi valley.  This cut the supply of Texas beef and grain to the east.  The north used the south's transportation system in the begining as their means of attack and occupation.  The camd down the Tennessee and Columbia rivers to take Nashville, and they attacked Memphis from Shiloh, because the south had all their guns facing the river near Memphis. 

Just a lot of things. 

[williamlayton]

By flank I was thinking of the West---which they could not possibly defend.
Of course it took the North a while to figger out that those frontal attacks were just not working.
Blessings

[SHOOTALL]

That was driven home at Fredricksburg Va. !

[williamlayton]

It appears that---this is us, in the present, observing the past or history---can see many flaws in the thinking of the South's decisions.
If I were in that time period, not seeing all that unfolds, I would question the leadership of their plans before I made a decision on which side to bet on.
The most obvious would have been available manpower to defend the borders. All other things seem to rely on this one fact.
If the South were to have thought that it had only to defend the borders of Virginia I would have  to have repied -- HUH?
There was no transportation issue the South could have overcome--even given todays tecnology--that could have protected its flanks.
Once the North had come to its senses and looked at the lay of the land sensibly---the picture is quite clear. There was an overwhelming population to the north of Tenessee and Kentucky and nothing but an empty barrel below Chattanoga.
Blessings

[bkraft]

The South lacked political leadership and fore thought. They had a cause(legitimate or not is debatable) but they lacked a strategy, vision and a plan to bring it all together. The North on the other hand had it all. Scott's Anaconda plan while brutally simple exploited every major weakness that the South had, all the while bring every asset of the North to bear. Scott was fortunate enough to have a leader in Lincoln who bought into the plan and stuck with the plan. Lincoln(like it or not) was a master politican whose only goal was to win the conflict, was flexible enough to  in the stroke of a pen change the entire face of the war, from secession to slavery with the Emancipation Proclamation, thus eliminating any chance of European intervention.

[williamlayton]

YUP!
Blessings

[Dixie Dude]

They withdrew from the Union peacefully.  However the Union was still operating the port forts trying to collect tarriffs.  That is why they fired on Ft. Sumpter.  If they had just rode it out and got reckognition of Britian and France as a seperate country, they might have gotten support from them, especially if the Union attacked first trying to force them back into the union.  Foreign ships could have just sailed by these forts and not paid the tarriff.  If the Union fired upon them or turned them away, it would be an act of war to these foreign countries. 

[SHOOTALL]

I'm Southern and love being so ! One thing that has made us strong but also caused us greef is tradition . The idea of not changing to meet new demands has caused the South many problems and may have been the biggest hindrence during the war of Northern aggression .Tradition is great in its place but times change and adjustments have to be made . Had the tradition of arg. been suplimented with industry in the South they could have beat the north at its own game but they refused to do so.

[Dixie Dude]

I often wonder how it would have turned out if the iron ore around Birmingham had been discovered 15 or so years before the war.  Birmingham at one time say about 60 years ago was as large or larger than Atlanta.   Atlanta was chosen over Birmingham for the international airport hub and Atlanta exploded with the airport and the interstate highway hub.  Birmingham being an iron and steel manufacturing base, it might have been a target instead of Atlanta back then.  Making iron and steel for plate for ships, cannons, and rifles, and steel rails for railroads, might have made a big difference. 

[williamlayton]

Dixie
I often sit and think about those things---If I were God I would have done this or that. If God had allowed this or that.
Of course we will never know--it just didn't go thataway.
If you look at history, sometimes, you can see how one thing changed the course. Most of the times it is several things that happen in time in space in time in conjunction with a number of events that cause this change.
It is fun though--this little monday moring quarterbacking game we play.
Blessings

[Swampman]

Manpower.....There were more fighting age men in NY state that there were in the entire South.  Despite popular myth we were well supplied until the end of the war.

[SHOOTALL]

Manpower.....There were more fighting age men in NY state that there were in the entire South.  Despite popular myth we were well supplied until the end of the war.

Gen. Mosby said he was supplied by the north other than the uniforms recived from Richmond .

[SHOOTALL]

Also the yankee's left alot of stuff on the battle field in there haste to retreat.

[Swampman]

Southern depots continued to crank out tons of uniforms and equipment all the way until the end.  Most soldiers prefered uniforms sent from home and discarded government issue when possible.  Cavalry tended to outrun supplies.

[SHOOTALL]

That conflicts with what we learned in history . It also conflicts with the pictures taken in and around Richmond during the war as they show many in what could only be called rags . Shoes were in short supply and lasted only a few mos .

[Swampman]

Yes at times the army did out run their supplies.  A pair of shoes lasted about 13 days.  A uniform about 2 or 3 weeks.  Most of what we learned in History doesn't hold water.  We simply didn't have enough soldiers.

[SHOOTALL]

or powder, ball,food or medicine . We inflicted 3 to 1 casl. on the North . And yes not enough to stem the barbaric horde from raping the South.

[subdjoe]

Yes at times the army did out run their supplies.  A pair of shoes lasted about 13 days.  A uniform about 2 or 3 weeks.  Most of what we learned in History doesn't hold water.  We simply didn't have enough soldiers.

For the most part shoes and uniforms by federal contractors weren't a whole lot better.   But there were so many more northern factories and suppliers turning them out that it really didn't matter much.

[williamlayton]

The attrition rate was what was to be expected attacking defensive positions.
The boys of the South were valiant fighters, no doubt, but the casualities were due to the type of fighting.
Patton is a good example--probably even the Desert Fox---string them out and only attack frontally when absolutely necessary.
See the trench warfare of WWI.
Blessings

[Dixie Dude]

The trench warfare of WWI was actually studied and copied from the seige of Richmond.  The south with trenches around Richmond held out for a long time with inferior numbers and munitions.  It wasn't until the north circled Richmond and broke through at Petersburg south of Richmond that Lee had to pull his forces and retreat west and was caught at Appomattox.  France and England stopped the German advance into France with trenches.  They knew Lee lost because he had far fewer men and munitions and the north had the ability to circle them.  The Allies new that had at least the equal to Germany in manpower and munitions, so they were able to stop them.  Then when America entered the war, the numbers for the Allies overwhelmed Germany. 

[Swampman]

8 out of 10 died from illness not bullets.  Stuff wore out fast not because it was inferior but because they were 100 times more active than we are.  Marching up to 60 miles in less than 24 hours, never washing your clothes or taking a bath, and sleeping with everything on without a blanket or tent tends to be hard on gear.

[subdjoe]

8 out of 10 died from illness not bullets.  Stuff wore out fast not because it was inferior but because they were 100 times more active than we are.  Marching up to 60 miles in less than 24 hours, never washing your clothes or taking a bath, and sleeping with everything on without a blanket or tent tends to be hard on gear.

To some extent that is true.  But there are plenty of letters, diary entries, and mémoires that comment on how cheap, shoddy, some of the uniforms and shoes were.  Complaints of toes going through the ends of socks the first time they were worn, pants falling apart, jackets falling apart or dissolving in the rain.  Single pegged shoes that last ten miles.  About the only clothing I haven't seen complaints about are the shirts.  North or South, doesn't seem to matter.

Clothing did get washed (often boiled in camp kettles - gave the coffee or soup a 'special' taste) periodically, just not as often as we wash it now.  And mending was a never ending task.  The old saw "A stitch in time saves nine" was taken to heart.  Catch tears or holes when they are small and it takes five minutes to repair.  Wait a day and you might spend half an hour on the same mending job.

Same with bathing. If nothing else, sluicing off with  water every day or two if you had access to a lake or stream.  And trying to wash hands and feet every day.   Several manuals recommend that.

[Swampman]

I read of surgeons having to cut off several rotten uniforms to get to the body.  It appeared that the soldier had just put on a new one without removing the old one.  Bathing was very uncommon under the best conditions.  Here's a good read.

http://www.military-historians.org/company/journal/confederate/confederate-1.htm

http://www.williamsongrays.com/Uniform.htm

[Swampman]

‎"His hat was a black dumpling crown good hat, his jacket looked like a dirty white coarse flannel the cuffs and coller dark blue and the buttons, large wooden very rough looking and pants nearly the color of his jacket but no two are dressed alike any more than our citizens dress at home" -- Observation of a Federal soldier, "Deep Bottom, Henrico Co.Va. Sept.25th. 1864"

Flannel was the term for wool BTW.

[GatorDude]

If I can only pick one, I'll go with manufacturing.  The South didn't have the population base of the North and we didn't have the industrial base or inexhaustible supply of manpower needed for a long war.  If we would have been able to crank out
lots of ironclads, the northern blockade might have been broken.  I think General Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia did a great job defending Virginia.  But, the western parts of the Confederacy were untenable.