Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Swimming back around to the thread's original topic...why the South lost the war...they lost because of a long chain of events which built upon one another until they were no longer capable of mounting a credible defense. It would be simple minded to select any one unfortunate occurrence and state that "this is where the war was lost" because it required all of the events which in reality combined to put the Confederacy out of business.
Consequently, it might do to trace things back to the first truly bad and critical decision made by someone on the rebel side. I don't mean secession itself, or the decision to open fire on Fort Sumter, those were events which got the war started. Rather, once the war was under way, what was the first event which set matters on a course that led ultimately to the defeat of the CSA?
I would argue that it was made by Bishop Leonidas Polk in September of 1861.
Kentucky had a governor who was sympathetic to the South, and a legislature which was firmly pro union. At the outbreak of the war, recognizing that whichever side they joined would immediately turn the state into a battleground, Kentucky declared itself neutral in the dispute, supporting neither side. While both sides claimed the allegiance of Kentucky, both also recognized that whichever side was the first to violate the neutrality, that would send Kentucky into the opposing camp. Consequently, while both sides sent men across the border on recruiting missions, neither dispatched any combat troops into Kentucky.
Enter Bishop Polk. He had been a West Point graduate in July of 1827, but resigned his commission just six months later to pursue a career as an Episcopal bishop. Polk had no active combat experience of any kind, but rose to become an influential figure in religious circles. Polk was also a former classmate and close friend of Confederate president Jefferson Davis. It was this connection which got Polk appointed to command in the west. (At this point, future western commander A.S. Johnston was still making his way from California to the east.)
It was evident to all that a Union attack on Tennessee would utilize the three avenues of invasion which were available, the Mississippi, the Tennessee and the Cumberland rivers. Polk was aware of the importance of keeping Kentucky neutral for the moment, but upon hearing reports that the Union was planning on occupying Columbus, Kentucky on the Mississippi, and recognizing that area as well suited for defending the river, Polk, without consulting the rebel government, decided to advance north and occupy Columbus first.
It was an extremely foolish decision for reasons beyound just violating Kentucky's declared neutrality. The actual defensive position which was critical wasn't Columbus, rather it was Paducah which was located at the point where the Tennessee river emptied into the Ohio. Occupying Paducah set the Union up for utilizing the Tennessee and the Cumberland to the east, to make swift strikes into western and central Tennessee. Once such strikes were made, it would leave Columbus outflanked and isolated, forcing its evacuation without a fight.
This of course is what happened, Grant moved swiftly to take advantage of Polk's foolishness, occupying Paducah. As expected, Kentucky viewed Polk's advance to Columbus as a violation of their neutrality, and looked to the north to defend the state. Grant went on to capture the forts defending the Tennessee and Cumberland, and once those rivers were opened, Columbus had to be evacuated by Polk.
Had Kentucky gone over to the Confederate side, it would have represented an enormous strategic advantage for the south. The North would not have been taking Tennessee in the first half of 1862, it would have been on the banks of the Ohio fighting to regain Kentucky. What followed would certainly have been very different from what did occur, and the alternatives were not favorable to the north.
So, I submit that the first error which led ultimately to the defeat of the Confederacy, was Polk's foolish decision to occupy Columbus, it had a massive impact on all that followed. Polk, as Civil War buffs well know, went on to establish that as a general, he made a fine bishop. If there was a Confederate "Hall of Defeat" dedicated to those who contributed the most to the failure of the Confederacy, you'd have exhibits devoted to generals Hood, Pemberton, Pillow, Floyd and Bragg, but the first portrait anyone should see when they walked in should be Bishop Leonidas Polk.
Quite possible, however I'm not sure how long the Union would have allowed Kentucky to remain neutral in the long run. If Kentucky remained neutral and both sides stayed out of it, eventually the Union would have needed it to open up a western front. What would Kentucky be able to do about it?
Quite possible, however I'm not sure how long the Union would have allowed Kentucky to remain neutral in the long run.
Bishop Polk removed that possibility. Had he exercised more patience and waited for the Union to be the first to violate Kentucky neutrality, then the North is starting the war from the Ohio River rather than at the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers.
Fascinating post. As most know the war in the West went a lot better than war in the East. I wonder whether Virginia would have been amenable to not seceding if it was allowed to remain neutral. I have always thought that Virginia's secession and entry into the war guaranteed that the war would turn into a bloodbath. Virginia was about the only economically viable part of the Confederacy.
Very importantly, without Virginia there was no Richmond, and without Richmond there was no Tredegar Iron Works, and without the Tredegar Iron Works there are no rebel ironclads, very little capacity to replace railroad rails, and very little capacity to produce artillery.
And perhaps even more importantly, without Virginia Robert E. Lee and Thomas Jackson would have been removed from the Confederate side.
Very importantly, without Virginia there was no Richmond, and without Richmond there was no Tredegar Iron Works, and without the Tredegar Iron Works there are no rebel ironclads, very little capacity to replace railroad rails, and very little capacity to produce artillery.
And perhaps even more importantly, without Virginia Robert E. Lee and Thomas Jackson would have been removed from the Confederate side.
Query though was there any realistic possibility of avoiding a Virginia secession? I know they hung out from after the March 4, 1861 Lincoln inauguration. Virginia didn't vote to secede until April 17, 1861, after Lincoln sought a nominal contribution of troops from Virginia.
Query though was there any realistic possibility of avoiding a Virginia secession?.
Perhaps if President Lincoln had announced that no action would be taken to address the rebellion and extended recognition to the seven states of the Confederacy as a new nation....but that would have been worse than merely losing Virginia to the other side.
Perhaps if President Lincoln had announced that no action would be taken to address the rebellion and extended recognition to the seven states of the Confederacy as a new nation....but that would have been worse than merely losing Virginia to the other side.
So a Kentucky-style neutrality would not have worked?
Last edited by PJSaturn; 09-06-2017 at 07:34 AM..
Reason: Corrected typo at user's request.
So a Kentucky-style neutrality would not have worked?
That's what I was wondering.
Virginia and North Carolina seceded because they were ordered to attack their southern neighbors. Why couldn't they just pull a Kentucky (or Missouri, but that didn't last long). That would have left an entire neutral buffer zone between the North and South.
Last edited by PJSaturn; 09-06-2017 at 07:34 AM..
Reason: Corrected typo in quoted post.
But maybe most wars don't get a "winner" otherwise. Japan has certainly been quite the ally notwithstanding the Tokyo firebombings, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
I still wouldn't go telling Japanese that it was in their best interest.
Keep in mind that Japan was unique in they took orders from their own heiarchy very seriously. These are people who would do a bonzai charge when they run out of ammo to avoid being captured. One thing that helped greatly with Japan was leaving the emperor in charge. Hirohito was highly revered and leaving him alone saved us a lot of grief. Having the Emperor to tell them to stop fighting is why they stopped, not because we broke the will of the people.
So a Kentucky-style neutrality would not have worked?
The Kentucky style neutrality didn't really work. There was never a chance that the two sides would slug it out while tip toeing around Kentucky and treating it as a third nation with its borders sacrosanct. Neither side ever officially acknowledged that Kentucky was neutral, but they behaved as though they did because both sides wanted the other to be the first to violate the claim.
Last edited by PJSaturn; 09-06-2017 at 07:35 AM..
Reason: Corrected typo in quoted post.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why Did The South Lose The Civil War?
