Why did the South have early victories in the American Civil War?

9 Answers

  • ra4bat
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    The Confederacy has leaders like Robert E. Lee, Thomas J. Jackson, A.P. Hill, JEB Stewart, James Longstreet and John Hood. The Union did not get solid leadership until George Meade took command in June 1863. There were only a handful of good commanders in blue like Winfield Hancock, John Reynolds at the Corps level. Joshua L. Chamberlain was still only a regimental commander. It wasn't until U.S. Grant took command that the Union began to chalk up some real victories.

  • 1 decade ago

    The North underestimated their foe, they thought the War would be over after the Battle of First Manassas, they thought wrong, the South was prepared against green troops that the North quickly recruited to try to put down the rebellion, the South that day almost had a clear road to Washington. After the Battle fo First Manassas it woke the North up and made them realize that proper training and ALOT of drilling was in MAJOR order. btw, the last guy that posted, please don't reply unless you have your facts in order, there were ALOT of southern victories, more than even history tells. Do not take anything away from the men that fell during the War Between the States, I and my group of reenactors portray both sides and try to teach and pay homage to both sides

    Source(s): me again
  • 1 decade ago

    First, they didn't have early victories in the West. In the West, the South was getting 3 losses for every victory. And in the East what basically happened is that Jackson and Lee proved to be tactically superior to the Northern commanders they faced in most battles until Meade and then Grant took command in the East.

    No, it has nothing to do with being better shots because of squirrel hunting. And there were just as many Union units that were rural, especially Western ones. Nor was it about fighting with more ferocity--that does a tremendous disservice to the Northern soldiers who died in battle. The vast majority of Southern soldiers were not fighting in their state and often expressed contempt for the state they were fighting in.

    There is this tremendous mythology that has sprung up about the South and the Civil War. The reality is that if Joe Johnston doesn't arrive by railroad, the North wins First Manassas and probably captures Richmond. Than if Johnston doesn't get wounded (so Lee takes command), McClellan probably takes Richmond.

    Both sides were filled with officers who learned how to fight in the Mexican-American war (where the most successful tactic was a quick frontal charge against unrifled muskets). But in the civil war, you had the combination of rifled guns (more accurate and greater distance) plus the minie' ball (more accuracy and distance even still). It meant that the tactics of almost all senior officers were bloody and outdated.

    Lee and Jackson were simply far more audacious to the Eastern Theater leaders they faced. But that said, all sides were filled with officers who were fighting with outdated tactics. That is why the casualties were so horrendous. Let me illustrate, in just the first 3 hours of Antietam in only the 1st phase of the battle (The Cornfield, West Woods, East Woods), there were 12,000 casualties. Doesn't sound that bad does it? Adjust it from the population of 1862 to the population of 2008 and that would be the equivalent of the US Army in Iraq suffering 120,000 casualties in 3 hours in a battle. What went on in the Civil War was butchery of the highest kind. What passed for victories were mutually bloody affairs that in many ways reflected poorly on both sides (other than it being a demonstration of immense courage).

    Scott--just a few things about your post.

    1. The South prepared against "green" troops? Both sides were green. And until Joe Johnston's troops arrived via train, the South was losing First Manassas and McDowell would have had a straight road to Richmond.

    2. BOTH sides thought the war would be short. The South didn't even see a need for conscription at the beginning of the war.

    3. Yes, the South had a lot of early victories--in the E.AST (as my post noted). That was primarily a function Lee and Jackson versus tactically inferior opponents in the East. But the West was a different story. Here is a nice summary in about 2 sentences of the Civil War in the West from a source other than myself: "Military historian J. F. C. Fuller has described this--the Western Theatre battles--as an immense turning movement, a left wheel that started in Kentucky, headed south down the Mississippi River, and then east through Tennessee, Georgia, and the Carolinas. With the exception of the Battle of Chickamauga and some daring raids by cavalry or guerrilla forces, the four years in the West marked a string of almost continuous defeats for the Confederates; or, at best, tactical draws that eventually turned out to be strategic reversals. And the arguably most successful Union generals of the war (Grant, Thomas, Sherman, and Sheridan) came from this theater, consistently outclassing most of their Confederate opponents (with the possible exception of cavalry commander Nathan Bedford Forrest)." So actually my original post that the South had about 1 victory for every 3 losses in the West was a bit generous?

    4. Not respecting the men who fought in this war? Please go back and read my post. There are a number of historians, military tacticians, and any civilian with a brain who walks the ground and envisions the mess of The Cornfield, the Hornet's Nest, or the waves approaching Marye's Heights and asks "how could they make that charge?" The Civil War was fought with outmoded tactics by generals who weren't prepared for the reality of the war and thus asked their men to engage in near suicidal actions. I don't dis-respect the men who fought, I do however have contempt for most of the general officers who continued to order frontal attacks against rifled muskets. Sir Douglas Haig (ie: the Somme) would have been right at home commanding an Army or Corps on either side.

  • 1 decade ago

    The Union Army has some poor leadership during the first years of the war. It helped alot when President Lincoln placed Grant as Commander.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 4 years ago

    the yank Civil conflict began in 1861, after 11 Southern states seceded from the u . s . (simply by subject concerns of states rights and slavery) and shaped their very own u . s ., the accomplice States of u.s.. quickly after, the 1st photos of the conflict have been fired in citadel Sumter, South Carolina, a US citadel which the Confederates captured. Up till 1863, the Confederates gained various the battles. In 1863, the Confederates 2nd optimal-score everyday Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson became killed by friendly hearth. quickly after, the tide of the conflict replaced, the turning element being at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. On April 9, 1865, accomplice everyday and commander Robert E. Lee unconditionally surrendered his adult men to Union everyday Ulysses S. supply at Appomattox Courthouse, Virginia, consequently ending the conflict.

  • 1 decade ago

    they had a few early victories before the turning point at gettysburg and up north due to their high morale and overconfidence that they'd win in a heartbeat, also the union army did have some troubles in the beginning as someone already said. the union shaped up though

  • 1 decade ago

    Mostly do to sub par generalship on the north side and most of the battles we of a defensive nature.and the north was slow to move.

  • they were better shots because they were hunters of game, for real, you didn't waste a bullet shooting a squirrel, and the battles were more on their turf, so the south defended with more ferocity.

  • 1 decade ago

    they didnt have early victories...they didnt even win

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.