Re: Northern vs. Southern Generals?

   Like the "right to secede?"

Hard to prove a negative.

;-)

the union didn't arms for everybody at first either. both sides were short
at the beginning, nobody on either side ever went into combat unarmed.

Acccording to Bruce Catton, at the battle of
Wilson's Creek

  Price had between 9,000 and 10,000 men, probably,
  of which only about 7,000 could [fight]; the rest
  had no weapons at all.

...

Not in 1861, on either side; especially the CSA.

Jeff Davis, late in the war, noted that the CSA
had overcome its early shortage of arms, when
volunteers were turned away for want of weapons
for them; now (1864) they had plenty of arms,
but wanted men to bear them. (He called for a
revival of the volunteer spirit.)

no southern troops ever had "no guns at all"

they all had the same, sprifields, enfields and austrian weapons.
both sides had  enough guns for everybody.

Some southern troops had no guns at all, and many made do with
smoothbores as well.

I did not say the Union had all the guns it wanted from the git go, I
said they had more and better.  That is all I said.

During the first years of the rebellion thousands of federal troops
were armed with muskets that had been purchased off the scrap heaps of
Austrian, Belgian, and other European
arsenals.  As late as July, 1863, Grant had several regiments of his
Army of the Tennessee exchange their outmoded smoothbores for Enfields
captured from the rebs at Vicksburg, and some federals at Gettysburg
were armed with smoothbore buck and back muskets.

(boggle), like valuable targets would not be defended.

As a rule the Union had a more men and more and better guns
(smallarms), and a hell of a lot more artillery and ammo for it.

Once in actual practice, but the threat of it always existed and this
had to be accounted for by southern generals in disposition of forces,
which prevented them from shifing large forces from for example
Virginia to the Mississippi Valley, as any such move could be exploited
by the union as they could move troops from theater to theater much
faster.

Make no mistake this was an important factor to consider, and that
limited confederate stratagey.

At enormous expence smuggled through a union navy blockade where much
of those weapons were lost to the union and were then shooting at
southern troops.  If they had more guns and ammo, and were able to
spend the money on other things, the war might have gone otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_Artillery_in_the_American_Civil_War

-----quote----
Confederate artillery
The South was at a relative disadvantage to the North for deployment of
artillery. The industrial North had far greater capacity for
manufacturing weapons and the Union blockade of Southern ports
prevented many foreign arms from reaching the Southern armies. The
Confederacy had to rely to a significant extent on captured Union
artillery pieces (either on the battlefield or by capturing armories,
such as Harpers Ferry); it is estimated that two thirds of all
Confederate field artillery was captured from the Union. Confederate
cannons built in the South often suffered from the shortage of quality
metals and shoddy workmanship. Another disadvantage was the quality of
ammunition. The fuses needed for detonating shells and cases were
frequently inaccurate, causing premature or delayed explosions. A
Southern officer observed, "The combination of Yankee artillery with
Rebel infantry would make an army that could be beaten by no one."

Confederate batteries usually consisted of four guns, in contrast to
the Union's six. This was a matter of necessity, because guns were
always in short supply. And, unlike the Union, batteries frequently
consisted of mixed caliber weapons.
-------------end quote

If that does not make you understand that the confederate army was not
in any reasonable way the equal of the federal army in terms of supply
and equipment, then nothing will.

Just imagine going up against an army that outnumbers yours (in
manpower) by a wide margin and has more artillery batteries and their
artillery batteries have six guns per battery and yours have four, most
of them anyway, and your batteries are not even all the same type of
gun so you have to get different types of ammo, while Yankee batteries
all eat the same type of ammo.

This is like a modern army having to take on an opponent with good air
support and you have a much inferior air force.

----snip

Look at a map of Georgia showing the rivers in Georgia and flowing into
the Atlantic and then tell me that.

http://www.n-georgia.com/lakes_&_rivers.htm

He had the Savanna river which is the border between South Carolina and
Georgia, then after crossing the Chattahoochee river he has two major
rivers that run southeast to the sea besides the Savanna.  Yes they
were important, yes for most of their distance they are navigable and
were used in antibellem times for trade.

--snip

.

the union landed on many coastal areas.but moving inland was a problem. any
really valuable place was defebded by strong forts and a garrison.
any troops had to be taken from critical areas and a strongly held supply
line would eat into any strength. the union tried and and found it was a
no-go

yes set next to the union.
they had plenty of men in their armies and they had exactly the same
weapons.

and then the union troops had to get off the trains and march south.
switching troops from penn to ohio was nice in theort but onlt paid off
once.

the south never sufferd from lack of rifles or guns.  what they were unable
to steal from federal armories they imported from europe

can you point to any time the confederates ran out of powder? that they
didn't have all they could carry?
they had plenty of small arms and more than enough guns. the north didn't
have masses of ordnance on had neither.
after bull run the war enterted a lull while both sides armed.
when fighting resumed everybody had what they needed.

only to lost causers who keep trying to convince us the south actually won.

sherman had no rivers to use. the tenn was passable only to muscle shoals.
after vicksburg rivers ceased to be a factor.

the northeast and the great plains had no bearing on the war.the highly
constricted terrain of northern va, the mts of north georgia and the heavily
forrested and ravine choked area along the mississppi did and those areas
are prime defensive terrain.

Not especially.  It is not like Switzerland or the Balkans.  Some good
defensive terrain, but many other areas easy to traverse and a wide
open flank where the US Navy could land troops almost anywhere with
little or no naval opposition.

Not set next to the union.

That is not true.  It made it very possible for the Federal Government
to shift axis of advances quickly from east coast to the area of the
Mississippi valley and back, while the confederates could not do that,
and had to keep large armies on both sides of the montains.

?????

http://www.civilwarhome.com/confederateordnance.htm
-----------------quote
At the beginning of the Civil War the Confederate States had very few
improved small arms, no powder-mills of any importance, very few modern
cannon, and only the small arsenals that had been captured from the
Federal Government. These were at Charleston, Augusta, Mount Vernon
(Alabama), Baton Rouge, and Apalachicola. The machinery that was taken
from Harper's Ferry Armory after its abandonment by the Federals was
removed to Richmond, Virginia, and Fayetteville, North Carolina, where
it was set up and operated. There were some State armories containing a
few small arms and a few old pieces of heavy ordnance. There was
scarcely any gunpowder except about sixty thousand pounds of old
cannon-powder at Norfolk. There was almost an entire lack of other
ordnance stores--no saddles and bridles, no artillery harness, no
accouterments, and very few of the minor articles required for the
equipment of an army.
----------end quote

In other words, huh?  where did you get that idea?

That is absurd.

The rivers were used much more for commerce than in the north and that
is how supplies were moved, and in the end how the Union learned to
supply itself in the south.

In any case you are being absurd, the northeast USA has much better
defensive terrain than the south.  The great plains states have the
least defendable terrain.

---snip

one should also consider the fact that the south had great defensive
terrain. large well equipped armies and they didn't need masses of troops to
defend their supply lines. the unions railroads did them no good in the
south, the south had all the weapons they could uses and never suffered on
that point.
the rule of thumb is that a three to one advantage is needed to guarantee
victory.
also the confederacy was a huge area. when all that is considered the union
actually won fairly quickly.

the primative road net and railroads in the south constricted movement,
armies could not just swarm about anywhere. they had to follow routes
determined by roads which followed natural features. mountain ranges,
trackless forrests and unfordable but also unnavigable rivers made the
souths task of defence easier.
choke points like chattanooga which was where you had to go through as it
was the only place to cross the tennessee and also pass through mts.
it is still so today.
you view of the strategic and tactical realities is as simple as your view
of the constitution.

One should consider the ratio of numbers of population and income in
money and other factors, also the  and superior supply chain in terms
of rail transport, and the fact that the union had a large navy when
making such statements. If the generals were roughly equal, then the
union should have won quickly.

They did not, ergo their generalship was probably deficiant.

Note that the troops to space ratio was not so dense as to make it
possible to defend all lines of approch by either side so the war was
very much one of manuver and so generalship was more not less
important. That is as opposed to conflicts like WWI where the troop to
space ratio were such that both side had several men per linear yard of
front.  In the war between the states the space ratio was much much
larger.

the south had one competant general. lee.
in the western theater the south was losing from the beginning.
A.S.Johnson, bragg, pillow, and many others,{a very long list} were
hopeless. even jackson and longstreet are over-rated.

that the south had better generals is a myth that does not stand up to close
scrutiny.

and i believe you meat president davis , not jackson, and his self imagined
genious hurt the south whereas lincoln knew he was nonapoleon and he was
willing to listen to council.

I observe that the North had a string of incompetent generals until
Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan took command.  And I observe that the
South had a string of competent and brilliant generals - except for
Bragg and Ewell (after Ewell lost his leg).

What was the cause of this?
Chance?
Or the fact that President Jackson was a military man, and President
Lincoln was not?

Your response please.
Thanks, Ralph.