The United States was going to win Civil War.

The imbalance in population between the two sections was roughly known by December of 1860, when the New York Times reported on the likely outcome of reapportionment, which would be in effect for the 1864 election.
The newspaper story is on the internet, but it would be just clutter here, the static difference between the two sections was not the controlling factor.
It was the analysis of the dynamic changes in the population from 1790 to 1860, summarized on the final page of the Preliminary Report on the 1860 census, provided here: https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1860/preliminary-report/1860e-06.pdf?# that demonstrate the population growth of the seven state area, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, had already established a momentum that was going to change the United States irrevocably. No military event could change that momentum. The population was already linked through Canada, back to Britain, Germany and Scandanavia.
The 1864 report on the census, https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1860/population/1860a-02.pdf?# even contains an analysis of the military age population of the United States at page xvii.
The comments in Grant's memoirs, that the United States could have lost the military struggle, and continued to grow, were backed by substantial demographic evidence.
In the various reports Superintendent Kennedy outlined the dynamic nature of the episode. A static map of the United States in 1860 is misleading. A dynamic analysis shows the effects of steam railroads and steamships.

 

At page 107 in the preliminary report Superintendent Kennedy also depicted the ship building capacity of the United States and states that composed the Confederacy. https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1860/preliminary-report/1860e-06.pdf?#
The capacity was almost entirely located in the New England and Mid-Atlantic states. There were extensions of this capacity in Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky meaning Louisville, and Missouri, meaning St. Louis. By the time the report was issued in May 1862 almost all the ship building capacity in the states that permitted slavery was in control of the United States.

 

All parties new that the Midwest was the fastest growing part of the country in 1860. But by 1862 the fact that immigration was heavily weighted towards young men and young families was revealed. New York and New England may have lost young men to emigration during the 1850's and the course of the war, but the farm belt, and the far west was growing. People may have escaping the draft, but they were not leaving the country.

 

The population growth disparity was one factor.
The fact that almost all the naval capacity and maritime tradition was in the northern states, and in that part of the border states that could be immediately controlled by the United States was the second factor.
In addition, steam engines magnified the power of naval vessels.
The third factor, demonstrated by the Confederates first, was that railroads completely changed the ability of armies to maintain operations, near the railheads. The belligerent that had the indigenous railroad industry, not the network, but the railroad locomotive capacity, iron and coal capacity, had an insurmountable advantage.

 

I agree with your above points. I only see two paths to Confederate victory.

1) Europe gets involved in a big way thus greatly changing the balance of the war.

2) The North believes the cost of the war is not worth it and quits.

Fighting a war that is depended on either you getting help or the other side not wanting to fight seems like a poor idea... thus the Lost Cause.

"If you go to war with the United States, you will never conquer her, as she has the money and the men. If she does not whip you by guns, powder, and steel, she will starve you to death.”
Sam Houston


"The Yanknees are better equipped then we, they have factories, naval yards, coal mines, and a fleet to bottle up our harbors and starve us to death. All we have is cotton, slaves and arrogance”
Rhett Butler

 

The facts are the facts, whether they knew them or not. If the facts have to be demonstrated by battle, and not just by voting, that is a tragedy.
But the power of the northern migration was so immense that is was hard to accept it. In addition, steamships had not been decisively deployed prior to 1860. They had been developed, but had not yet been a decisive element.
War is progressive, as Grant noted. Some things have to be demonstrated in order to become apparent.
As noted, there were ways the Confederates could win, which gave them cause to have hope.
By the time the facts were obvious, there was no pathway back to a realistic negotiating stance.

 

The same could be said of England and the American colonies during the Revolution.

Outnumbered, outmanned, and outgunned, and yet circumstances led to a successful rebellion.

It seems the Confederacy based its hopes for success along similar lines without similar circumstances.

 

My goodness (no offense to you) do I have to make it clear about what events that occurred in July 1861-January 1862, June/July-September 1862, and December 1862-January 1863 from the words of contemporaries living at that time which I already have posted on two other threads none of what you said was what anyone actually fighting or observing would have brought up they bring up the actual fighting, read them for yourself instead of spamming this thread.

 

No French intervention.

 

The British faced logistal and financial problems the United States didn’t face. And relying upon a professional army as they did the British were unable to field large enough armies in America. I will hazard to guess that the Rebels outnumbered the British and Tories when the militias are taken into account and while the Continentals and French may have won the military war it was the militia that enabled the Rebels to win the political and social war.

Regards

 

@BlueandGrayl,

It would be nice to know who you were replying to in your above post.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

Irishtom29,

I have heard this explanation before, but I have also seen it said that the militia simply was not that effective against the trained British professional army until they had received far more training such as at Valley Forge.

Unionblue

 

Truly, they often didn’t fight well. But they physically controlled the countryside and allowed the Rebels political control over areas not occupied by British regulars. And there weren’t enough of those to occupy much territory.

 

Irishtom29,

I have read, in the book, The Winter Soldiers, I think, that fully one third of the colonial population did not support either side and remained pretty much neutral during the Revolution, while one third supported the British and the remaining third supported the rebels.

What is your opinion on such a reasoning?

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

The colonial troops could pull a few out of fire tho. Plus, given mundane tasks like picket duty (patrol, skirmish. stuff outside a true battle) they could get the job done.

 

The traditional view is that the Confederates could form armies, and were intrepid fighters and therefore had a reasonable chance of success. There is also the Lost Cause aspect to it, that the new the cause was futile but fought for noble ideals of self determination and so forth. They certainly were intrepid fighters, but it did not matter. The did not have navies and nothing within their power was going to invade the Midwest, break-up its economy and turn them into Confederates.
The Midwest had so many young men in it, that they could form the western armies, supplement the eastern armies, grow the frontier, and increase agricultural production at the same time.
They could have given up the Mississippi and run the economy on railroads and Great Lakes shipping, and fought at a different time.

 

The population event occurring was a world event in which millions of people were leaving Europe and coming to the United States. The people coming were young men and young families. The equivalence was not the American Revolution, it was the nations of Europe swamping the boundary of the Roman empire and substituting tribal and feudal order for Roman law. The difference is obscured by the fact that the migration was facilitated by safe oceanic passage, and reliable railroads.
It was the collapse of the Roman empire accelerated. The first stage was the electoral revolution and the second stage was the burst of energy in both winning the war and expanding the economy at the same time. One should read Superintendent Kennedy's enthusiastic report.

 

The people who were willing to fight, could go fight, and there millions more able to run the farms and the railroads.

 

As I understand it the original source of that thinking has been debunked. Actually, I recall a thread on this forum where it’s discussed.

In any case what in fact happened in areas not controlled by the British regular army argues against there having been as many Tories as Rebels. For instance at Ninety Six in South Carolina the local Tories, supported by a New Jersey Tory regiment that was as firm as British regular troops, were able to withstand a siege by Greene until relieved by Lord Rowdan with an army from Charleston. Yet holding the place was considered a lost cause, an island in a sea of Rebels, and Ninety Six was abandoned and the people taken to Charleston.

By the way, the NPS park at Ninety Six is well worth visiting, especially for those with an interest in siegecraft.

 

Railroad network, shipbuilding centers, iron production, industrial capacity, financial center and especially manpower all favored the North.

Edward Porter Alexander's book, Military Memoirs of a Confederate, recounts the story of someone advising Alexander to remain with the Army and not fight for the South. The speaker cited all the advantages the North enjoyed over the South.

The Southern myth that one Southern boy could whip ten Yankees was based on the misconceived notion that all Northerners were soft bookkeepers or factory workers. They ignored that there were plenty of farmers and outdoorsmen in the North.