After Fort Sumter when the Union Army began to mobilize, the general consensus was that the US Civil War would be quick--violent, but fast. Yet in hindsight, we know that the war was anything but quick--from General McClellan's hesitancy, to bloody battles with high casualty rates but little to no forward momentum. Plus, it was a constant struggle to adequately staff, clothe, feed and arm each army.
What do you see as the major setbacks in the early stages of the Civil War? Evaluate the military leadership of the Confederacy versus the sheer lack thereof in the Union. Why did Lincoln struggle so much to find an adequate military leader?
I always go back to the idea of a "motivation to fight" when I talk about the Civil War. The Confederacy had a large amount of leaders that were very quick to give their time and possibly their lives to fight for their way of life. I don't believe is was finding the leaders that Lincoln struggled with, but rather finding leaders that were willing to give 100% into fighting this war. The Unionwas obviously a much stronger and powerful military, considering all the resources and material advantages they started out with, but I think the biggest advantage went to the Confederacy, this being a "motivation to fight". That was the initial and probably the biggest setback in the war, causing it to be a lot longer and bloody that the people, let alone the Union, every intentioned.
ReplyDeletefight"
I totally agree with mr. Graham on this one. The fact that the mind-set of both countries was very different was i believe the biggest set back in the early stages of the war. If the north had the same intensity and passion for the cause as the southerners did then they would of finished the south in a few months up to a year. another huge setback was the lack of leadership in the north. the north had the materials, troops, arms, but no leaders. the south had very little materials, troops, arms, but the leadership was some the best this country has ever seen. the sheer fact that Robert E. Lee choose the south over the north was a huge setback to Lincoln's war plan and had really profound affects on the civil war in the upcoming years.
ReplyDeleteWhen you look through history and some of the greatest leaders of all time, its hard to over look the some of the generals from the confederacy. People like Robert e lee and Nathan Bedford forest, had a major, crucial role in the confederate attack. Lincoln did have much trouble finding suitable leaders. The reason for this was because nobody was willing to die from their country and what truly mattered in their eyes. The union had all of the wealth which brought better military weapons and also a better military in general. Another problem that the confederacy had was the conscription law. This law allowed a person to be excempt from service if they had a substitute or payed 500$ cash. This could have been a problem because many of the wealthy would pay their way out of service.
ReplyDeleteBut I totally agree with Mitch from today in class when he talked about this motivation to fight. I believe that this one aspect can change the whole game around. You see this so many times in sports and movies. Where the underdog rises out of sheer willingness to go that extra step and continue to fight. This aspect was lacking on the union side which though didn't change the result, it did pay a bit of a tole on them.
I think that Lincoln faced a nearly impossible task of finding a general that would live up to the greatness of Robert E. Lee. Lincoln wanted Lee on the Union side at the beginning of the war, yet he refused due to his virginian pride. Lee was just one of those great people who combined tenacity, spirit, and tactic and proved humself as one of the greatest generals of all time. Lincoln envied that and in looking for a general failed to find one as great as Lee. There can only be one great general and trying to compare others with him is nearly impossible for anyone to do, even the president.
ReplyDeleteAs I may have previously stated in another blogpost, the most distinguishable difference that I can see between the Union and Confederates, is the sheer drive behind each army. The Confederate soldiers had an absolute hunger to secure their independence and way of life, reminiscent in a way of the American Revolutionary War. It was apparent that most of the Northerners weren't passionate enough to want to jump into total war. Aside from those circumstances, the South had better generals mainly because most career soldiers and generals lived in the South, and became part of the Confederacy almost by default. Good generals were not available because Grant, Sherman, etc. had not risen the ranks yet. The North was fortunate enough to bide time until they matured into leaders, and ultimately won the war because of late - Civil War strategies.
ReplyDeleteIf I were a white man during the Civil War, I would be furious if I had to fight a "black man's" war. People on the union were fighting for something that they were not truly passionate about. But the Confederates, they were fighting for their livelihoods. Many of the premier military institutes were in the south too, with many of West Point graduates being southerners.
ReplyDeleteI think that Lincoln struggled to find a good military reason for the same reason as I mentioned in my last blog post. The Southerners were fighting for their way of life. Therefore, they had a lot more passion in terms of wanting to fight and lead their people against the North, who they thought should just leave the South to be.
ReplyDeleteLike others have said, Robert E. Lee was a great general, and Lincoln had no hope of finding someone so loyal to his troops and determined to win the war effort.
Well, the way i see this is that the souliders from south are fighting for their home, for their "country",and their family just because the war took place in the south; imgaine if some one
ReplyDeleterun amounk in your house and want to hurt you and your family, you would defeinately be more pised than that guy is, so does the south, this war take place maybe just in frount their home, and they are fighting for themselves. In contrast, the north wasn't motivated enough as south at the begining of the war despite great technology and economy advantage. if some join a game and the majority of the team do not even want to win, they won't.
I believe Lincoln could not find a General to compare to the irreplaceable Robert E. Lee. In fact, Lincoln wanted Lee as part of the Union, but he refused to turn against Virginia. The south was fighting to preserve their way of life whereas the north seemed to be fighting for an overall cause. In other words, the south was much more passionate in the war, which therefore resulted in exceptional leaders such as Robert E. Lee. The north could not compete with that aspect, although they ended up being victorious.
ReplyDeletei hate to jump on the "Graham" bandwagon here, but i do agree. Lincoln just could not find a completely, wholly, entirely dedicated leader for his cause. While the confederacy had several who inspired their troops to fight onward for their very way of life. It was the Unions hesitance that lead to their demise at several battles with the confederates.
ReplyDelete