Why did The Confederates Lose Despite Their Big Military Victories? - The American Civil War (1862)

You can help us directly by becoming a Member: youtube.com/channel/UCuCuEKq1xuRA0dFQj1qg9-Q/join You can also support us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/Knowledgia Thank you so much for your consideration!

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.

"Amateurs talk strategy. Professionals talk logistics." Soldiers win battles. Logistics wins wars. Logistics favored the North.

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.

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.

"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.

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

"It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it." -- Robert E. Lee

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.

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.

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'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.

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.

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! 😃👍

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.

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.

Great Presentation. Short & Concise. Thank you.

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.

Rhett Butler said it best: “There is not one cannonball factory in the entire South”. The South was largely agrarian and with the blockade of southern ports by the North simply starved them of materials. You can have a military genius like Lee but when you can’t replace equipment or feed and clothe your troops it’s only a matter of time.

Great vid. Love the format. I grew up around Richmond and Petersburg, thus the Civil War has always been a thing for me. New subscriber. Thanks for the work! 😎👍