(01-23-2015 04:15 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  To HOD's point,....PGT Beauregard could have easily just ridden into DC after First Manassas July21, 1861. Woulda, coulda, shoulda... it was that easily had at that time.

The failure to follow up a victory with an offensive invasion has been the downfall of many military leaders. In the 20th century the failure of Germany to mount an actual invasion of England after Dunkirk and the Japanese failure to follow the assault on Pearl Harbor with an invasion of the Hawaiian Islands both contributed significantly to the outcome of the war.

As far as the War Between the States is concerned you are correct. But the analysis is thrown off by the absence of other facts. The Union poured divisions of immigrants into the war by offering an early path to citizenship if they enlisted, or in some cases threatening to not allow them into the country if they refused. The South always had huge deficits in manpower and therefore the ability of the North to occupy large areas was enhanced, but the resupply of troops is more germane to your point. The initiative at the beginning was lost after a significant victory. The time allowed by the failure to follow up the victory with an invasion gave the North the time for the initial movement of troops to support D.C., the training of recruits, and eventually the replacement of hack politically promoted leadership with battle proven competent officers. The resulting duration of the war permitted their industrial strength to overwhelm the South with superior war goods. (In that regard it was not dissimilar to what happened with American industrial strength in the war against the Axis). There are indications that some Southern leadership was aware that if the war lasted longer than a year or two that any advantages they had would be lost, save for alliances which the South hoped to garner, but didn't.