American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

What is the biggest misconception of the war by Civil War Historians do you believe?

Lots of different answers here and I listed a few options in the poll question. Feel free to add your own answers as well. There are no "wrong" answers but which claim do you think is the most often stated that you feel is the least correct?

1. The North could not have lost the war. This is a misconception because if Lincoln had lost the election of 1864 there was a strong movement to make peace with the South, thus allowing a separate Confederate nation. Also, if Lee had won Gettysburg it was possible that France might have sided with the South thus negating the north's naval advantage and allowing the breako fthe blockade. I'm not sure England would have sided with the South because of their strong anti-slavery stand but they sure could have sent supplies serreptitiously.

_________________
Gen. Drex Ringbloom,
AotS ,Commanding

The large industrial base of the north was critical to support both the sea/river based operations and the land operations.

The blockade strangled resupply for the CSA.

_________________
General Ernie Sands
President ACWGC -Sept 2015- Dec 2020
7th Brigade, 1st Division, XVI Corps, AoT
ACWGC Records Site Admin

"If you do not know where you are going, any road will take you there."

The biggest misconception is that the south lost

_________________
General Cam McOmish

Brigade Commander
Alabama State Volunteers
Cleburne's Division
Hardee's Corps
(1/1/1)
Army of Tennessee
Confederate States of America

Now that is a misconception in itself- a misconceived misconception. Only a Reb could think up something like that.

_________________
Gen. Drex Ringbloom,
AotS ,Commanding

Gen. Ringbloom, the South DIDN'T lose...the soldiers just got tired of and bored with shooting at Yankees and went home to find other hobbies...

_________________
BG David McWaters
ANV
7/2/II Corps
18th Alabama Infantry
Sharpshooters

And, thus, was born NASCAR

(even though I hate it)

Personally I always thought the fall of Vicksburg to be the most overrated victory of the war. It was a brilliant campaign and Grant bagged Pemberton's Army but the Mississippi was already closed to the Rebs since the fall of New Orleans early in 1862. The only thing going east-west across the river were the odd division or two but by 1862 most of the men in the TX, LA, and AR would stay in those states to fight rather than head east. Not that it stopped Bragg from always trying to call on the "vast" western reserve of men.

It goes against the grain to say this - sorry team, but the biggest misconception is that the South could have won the war - maybe a fine aspiration for some, but industrial might and man power win modern wars, and the ACW was a modern war - same as WW2. Good military leadership, tactics and a great dress sense might mitigate some of the affects of industrial might and man power, but if the advantage is too great as it was in the Civil War then the smaller team will loose .

_________________
General Cam McOmish

Brigade Commander
Alabama State Volunteers
Cleburne's Division
Hardee's Corps
(1/1/1)
Army of Tennessee
Confederate States of America

Mathmatically the South couldn't have won the war. But then mathmatically Vietnam couldn't have won either. However, for the South they didn't need to defeat and occupy the North. They just had to get Lincoln to lose his re-election.

_________________
General Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
AoT II/1/3 (CSA)

I agree. Mathematically, the Colonies couldn't have won the American Revolution, either. I think the South could have won, had they fought a purely defensive war and ground down the Northern will to fight.

I'll have to go with the biggest misconception being that the Emancipation Proclamation gave the North the "moral high ground" as the poll question put it. Not because I think slavery was 'right'. But there were 5 states that were still in the Union that had a large percentage of slaveowners - MO, KY, WV, DE, and MD. The Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in the Confederate States - it did nothing about those in the 5 states just mentioned. And, at least from what I've read, the conditions for blacks in the North weren't much different than slavery (and in some cases, were worse).

_________________
BG David McWaters
ANV
7/2/II Corps
18th Alabama Infantry
Sharpshooters

According to Paddy Griffith iin his Battle Tactics of the Civil War, The War of the Rebellion was the last Napoleonic War. The tactics were not much different until the very end when entrenchment was the name of the game.
Also, if Gettysburg was lost to the south and europe recognized the South, then their industrial might would have aided the Rebs and then it would be a different ball game.

_________________
Gen. Drex Ringbloom,
AotS ,Commanding

I agree the tactics were Napoleonic, but it was fought with much more modern weapons, with the backing of the industrial revolution, plus railways and the telegraph. As for Vietnam I do not think that mathematically the US could have won.

_________________
General Cam McOmish

Brigade Commander
Alabama State Volunteers
Cleburne's Division
Hardee's Corps
(1/1/1)
Army of Tennessee
Confederate States of America

[quote="cameronm"]I agree the tactics were Napoleonic, but it was fought with much more modern weapons, with the backing of the industrial revolution, plus railways and the telegraph. As for Vietnam I do not think that mathematically the US could have won.[/quote
Yes some of the artillery was rifled and some of the guns were rifles but their advantage in distance was negated by the fact that the distance they were used at was about the same as in the Napoleonic battles. The telegraph was used for long distance but on the battlefield it was still the courier that carried the message.
I'm not sure what qualifies a war as "modern". The Crimean War has been called the first modern war with its use of trains and telegraph but somehow the Charge of the Light Brigade smells Napoleonic to me.

_________________
Gen. Drex Ringbloom,
AotS ,Commanding

When looking at some of these issues, it is easy to use, in hindsight, a sort of techinical analysis. Take Vicksburg, for example. The significance of it at the time, as I see it, was as much about national and army morale as it was removing a large chunk of the Rebel army from the field. The North needed victories.

In revolutionary wars, whether it be the American Civil War, the American War for Independence, Vietnam's two wars of independence, or Algeria's (just finished reading A Savage War of Peace), it is the will to continue fighting, the ability to continue fighting (which the Anaconda Plann sapped away at) AND calculations external to the war (foreign and domestic policy) that are decisive. The rebel factions are often much more able to absorb defeat (and occupation, if they were already directly colonized, as the South was not) than the side seeking to maintain control. Domestic and foreign politics play a heavy role as well. The men fighting do not like to hear this (ask many Vietnam vets or the French Generals of 1961-62).

So, anyhow, I voted for the first one, that it is a misconception that the North could have lost. An assissination of Lincoln in 62, stalemate in the west, a hurricane sinking and invasion force or two, foreign intervention, etc...more losses in the field...

Gentlemen of the Club <salute>

I would argue that out of the possible votes, # 1, North can not lose the war, goes for it to me.
Agreed that mathematically this makes out to be an impossibility, modern warfare between two states is primarily about supply/resources, but that is why the game is played isn't it?
Quick example, the Russo-Japanese War of 04/05.
General Kuropatkin famously would exclaim, "[P]atience, patience, patience."
Realizing that eventually Russia, (yes, even a Tsarist Russia of 04/05), would win the battle of supply and thus the war if enough time were allowed.
The Japanese also knew this and that was one of the reasons why they were quick to agree to a, (granted, generous), peace.

Respectfully

_________________

Brig. Gen. L.T. Korotko
1/1/VI/AotS
The Bucktails