2nd Bull Run
- Thread starter America 1st
- Start date
BigBucnNole
Elite
Good guys won.
Yes ultimately the Union won the war but if the CSA had been able to better capitalize after this battle we might have a different history.
Yes, this was a Confederate major victory.
Always enjoy speculation on if there should have been more follow up after the win.
preshlock
Poster
I've always wondered that if instead of a victory at Bull Run what if the South had a decisive victory where the entire Union Army was destroyed. I doubt that much would have changed as Washington D.C. still had a huge garrison with a bunch troops training by. Who knows maybe the North also doesn't wait until the summer of 1863 to ramp up the war effort and the war is even shortened.
Also there was a huge reason why no field army, until the very last stage of the war, was ever completely wiped out.
Feels like they took a little bit of a step back by not following up. I always felt it should have been somewhere besides around Washington.
The 'wins' at 2nd and on the peninsula (neither of which were as drastic as we frame them up to be) were largely due to retaining the initiative. Don't know why they took their foot off the gas.
futurepanther
Poster
The Federals were really good at moving men and resources when a major city was under threat. During the Kentucky Campaign, Kirby Smith sent roughly 8,000 Confederates under Henry Heth to make a demonstration against Cincinnati. The Federals were able to organize over 80,000 troops to defend it. Of course, a majority of the forces were militia, but it was impressive.
preshlock
Poster
of course one of the famous quotes is that the Confederates were just as disorganized by victory at Bull Run as the Union was by defeat. Maybe with the training and experience of the 1862 or 1863 army that could have been done. But both sides were just getting armies formed.
Always thought a fundamental mistake of the Confederates was not building up an army before the war. If the Army of Northern Virginia had been established for a couple of years before the war then the Confederates would have been in much better position at the opening. Of course the same is true for the Union but with the resource disparity the onus was really with the Confederates.
Look at Germany in 1914 and 1939 and see what a smaller but very highly trained army could achieve against numerically superior opponents. But instead the war began with no real strategic view in place.
Another great example of this is Price's '64 invasion of Missouri when Union troops were moved by paddle boat to defend St. Louis from as far away as Tennessee and Mississippi. Turned out to be quite unnecessary, but they had no way of knowing how poorly equipped Price's Missouri State Guard was.
AgEngDawg
Legendary
I think many people overlook how ill-equipped the Confederate armies were, logistically, to conduct lengthy operations in enemy territory. They chose a defensive strategy mainly for that reason. There are many documented cases of Confederate soldiers overrunning Union camps and stopping to loot them instead of continuing to pursue Union troops.
AgEngDawg
Legendary
They were extremely poorly equipped. In fact, many say that Lee's entire plan in the Pennsylvania invasion was to just spread out in an arc in Pennsylvania and live off the land for a while. Give Virginia farmers a rest.
Also, it annoys me so much when I see a fat Confederate in a movie. They didn't exist.
Quatch$
Elite
Haha very true. Those mother fuckers didn’t even have shoes, let alone food. They were boiling leather belts to eat for God’s sake.
futurepanther
Poster
The idea of the "ragged rebel" is really exaggerated. Sure, there are examples where the Confederate armies were in really bad shape like the Antietam Campaign, and Price's 1864 Missouri Raid. However, there are also several examples where the Confederates were better uniformed and supplied than the Federals. It really depended on which theater they served in and what phase of the war.
AgEngDawg
Legendary
I disagree. That was never the case in the Eastern theatre. One side had a naval blockaded and the other was not and it showed.
In 1864, it showed and showed big time.
By 1865, it was extreme.
futurepanther
Poster
Is that why the Confederate dead of Fort Mahone (April, 1865) are mostly wearing almost brand new imported Tait style jackets, new shoes, and accoutrements? This was just days before Lee's surrender at Appomattox.
Adolphus Confederate Uniforms
BigBucnNole
Elite
We whipped their yankee ass under Gen’rl Jackson with muskets from the 18th century at the battles of Winchester in the Shenandoah Valley.
BigBucnNole
Elite
Lee’s army was still pretty short of clothing leading into the battle of Fredericksburg. And that was when we were supposedly the best equipped.
South had the resources, and almost the production capacity to maintain the armies. Where shit went “south” was the logistical abilities. Which ironically was a major factor in clearing up before the Revolution began to tilt in the direction of the colonies.
AgEngDawg
Legendary
The fact that the Confederates were sorely lacking in food and supplies especially in 1864 and 1865 is NOT up for debate. This is extensively reported in the historical literature.
It is also completely against common sense. Why would they risk the great Beefsteak Raid if they were well fed?
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Anyone ever wondered why 'gender dysphoria' is the only recognised form of dysphoria?- Latest: weaponoffreedom
