[InterestedInPolitics]

Well, living in Georgia for a period of time, I am not sure if Sherman's policy of scorched earth policy was a good one or not. Their were plenty of rapes committed by Union soldiers at the time and not all of the towns were burned to the ground either. One town, a town called Madison which I used to drive through on occassion. It was said that when Sherman's armies arrived that they were so taken in by the town's beauty that they decided not to burn it to the ground. However, the truth was later discovered that Sherman's armies were just paid off by the local townspeople. Of course, the Union army could just take what they want, but, then the townspeople have ways of hiding their wealth where it could not be found too. The original intention of the scorched earth policy was to break the will of the south to fight on. I am not sure if this really accomplished it or not. Robert E. Lee thought about waging a guerrilla campaign rather than surrender, but the Union generals dealt with him with a gentle hand rather than trying to dictate harsh terms on him. Had they attempted to dictate harsh terms, I believe Robert E. Lee would not have surrendered and would have decided to wage a guerrilla war. Sherman's campaign certainly destroyed what little industrial or economic capacity the south had to continue a war in a modern sense. But the Union generals certainly understood that the south was serious about succession and it was one of the reasons why the initiated the scorched earth campaign. The south really wanted to have their own seperate country. When I tell people how different the south can be from the north, while living up north, some people up north don't seem to take me seriously (they argue that I talk as if the south is it's own seperate country) but they forget that at one time, the south suceeded from the Union and tried through the use of force to be it's own seperate country. So their are cultural and mentality differences in the south as opposed to the North. Living down south, I can also say, that I have seen the devestating effects that slavery has had on the south, even all the way up to today from the culture and the general pyschology of the southern states.

[MB.]

waging a guerrilla campaign

The CSA did not possess the capacity, culturally and logistically, to fight a guerrilla conflict.

[InterestedInPolitics]

You're probably right, but that wouldn't stop from trying. The Reconstruction period in the south was like a mini version of the US Civil War fought all over again.

[Smilin' Dave]

The original intention of the scorched earth policy was to break the will of the south to fight on. I am not sure if this really accomplished it or not.

The campaign in Georgia was about more than breaking Confederate morale, it had significant strategic implications due to the geographic position and the economic impact. Further scorched earth was a strategy employed by Sherman, rather than a battlefield tactic, and hence has little relevance to the discussion you initiated about Confederates being better on the battlefield.

The south really wanted to have their own seperate country.

Dare I suggest that the 'success' of the scorched earth policy, in light of the outcome and your own statements, suggests they didn't want it that badly?

When I tell people how different the south can be from the north, while living up north, some people up north don't seem to take me seriously (they argue that I talk as if the south is it's own seperate country) but they forget that at one time, the south suceeded from the Union and tried through the use of force to be it's own seperate country.

I wouldn't take you that seriously, because in reality the southern states were a diverse lot, and some, like Texas, had nothing to share with a Confederacy. This dissention between the Confederate states was another strategic weakness, as it prevented efficient coordination.

So, where are the battlefield successes in Georgia? The Union troops seem to have won the battles, and attrition on their side was relatively light.

[Suska]

the truth was later discovered

could you provide some sources? this is not the story I heard & i don't find it very believable.

[Spotacus]

I would like to add that on the subject of European involvement I can't see it.

Their was a debate about whether the UK should recognise the CSA and individuals were sympathetic to the South. But to probably the majority the North was the right side. I can imagine that it ignited dinner party debates but nothing more.

Also leaving aside moral questions such intervention could very well have ended very badly for the British, It would have been a very different kind of war then the colonial wars that were typical of the period and would have taken a different level of commitment. The British navy were seen as invincible at that period but the U.S. were not far behind and they would be fighting in home waters. The north had control the navy. If we were unable to save the south and force the North to terms we might have lost Canada. Also with lost naval supremacy the U.S. could have took over the Caribbean colonies and supported a rebellion in Ireland, and risk all that for what, preserve slavery?

Look at the trouble the French had in Mexico.

[Dave]

You seem to be confusing 1863 with 1913. The Royal Navy would've blown the US Navy out of the water very rapidly during the Civil War.

[Oxymoron]

The Royal Navy would've blown the US Navy out of the water very rapidly during the Civil War.

Say hello to ma lil frien

[Dave]

Say hello to ma lil frien

One vessel, and one which was incapable of anything but coastal travel. I should also add that it was the French, not us, who had the world's first iron-clad (discounting Admiral Yi's iron turtle). The Royal Navy for its part decided in 1861 to move to an all-armored battle-fleet.

[Spotacus]

What we are talking about almost happened Trent Affair

And the people at the time thought;

The British strongly believed that they had naval superiority over the Union. Although Union ships outnumbered Milne’s available force, many of the United States fleet were simply remodeled merchant ships, and the British had an advantage in the number of total guns available. Bourne suggested that this advantage could change during the war as both sides turned more to ironclads. In particular, British ironclads had a deeper draught and could not operate in American coastal waters, leaving a close blockade dependent on wood ships vulnerable to Union ironclads.

The British at the time thought they would win but it would be no walkover.

Their hadn't been a naval engagement on a large scale since the Napoleonic wars, At the time new technology was being employed needing new and untested tactics. What actually would have happened is anyones guess. We are uncertain of what the outcome would be and if you look into it they were uncertain at the time.

[MB.]

The Royal Navy would've blown the US Navy out of the water very rapidly during the Civil War.

This is an accurate assessment of the relative capabilities of the Union and Royal Navies in 1861. HMS Warrior was completed in October 1861.

[dugfromthearth]

1) the South had better officers at the start of the war. Most officers in the U.S. army at the start of the war were southerners. So it wasn't that the south had inherently better officers, it was that the south got most of the professional officers from the army.

2) the best generals in the war were Grant and Sherman. Lee was operationally good, but he really owed his success to his massive cavalry superiority, particularly when scouting. When he did not have that at Gettysburg he blundered into battle and lost. His strategy was never very good. He was never able to exploit his battlefield successes. Grant was able to exploit battlefield losses into operational successes.

3) the confederate army did not outfight the union army man for man in a meaningful way. The csa under Lee did better than the Union army against it, until Gettysburg - until it turned into siege warfare. In the west the union army did better than the csa - until it turned into siege warfare. It is certainly true that the csa when defending fortifications did better man for man then the union army attacking those fortifications - but that's due to the fortifications.

[MB.]

I think McClellan was clearly the best General of the Civil War.

until it turned into siege warfare

The Civil War was a siege war from the get-go.

The Royal Navy would've blown the US Navy out of the water very rapidly during the Civil War.

Dave's statement is accurate, if bellicose.