Interpretation of the War

[Pemberton1]

According to the "Lost Cause" school on the War, the Confederates never really had a chance to win the War, yet fought it anyway. Jubal Early and Douglas Southall Freeman were both proponents of this view. Oddly, this "defeatist" attitude and interpretation seems chiefly Southern.

I do suppose that the point of the Ageod game is that the South really did have a chance to win: otherwise there would be no point playing it out. "What if" questions about the War are precisely the kind of thing that makes a game like this so interesting.

Personally, with due respect to the likes of the venerable Freeman, I think the Southerners did have a chance to win the War. In my own reading, I see the War as a hopeless struggle in '64 and '65. The double blow of Gettysburg and Vicksburg on July 3rd and 4th of '63, I think, was the fatal blow.

Any other ideas about critical times, fatal blows, or even if the Confederate States even had a chance at independence? All comments are very welcome.

[captainmatt]

I personally feel that the high tide of the Confederacy had already passed by the time of Gettysburg.

The high point for the Confederacy, IMHO, was in the fall of 1862 when Bragg led the invasion into Kentucky, and Lee took the ANV into Maryland.

If they had both won, that is two victories on "Northern soil". I think you would have seen a diplomatic push by Britain & France to come to some sort of a peace agreement. Also, with two victories in the fall of '62, the Emancipation proclamation would probably not have been issued.

There are so many "what if's" and "could have done's" during the war that if you debated for the rest of the year, I still think there would be many unanswered questions.

[Coregonas]

I dont think exactly so. The VP system is designed in this game as some other games. The idea is:

The winner of the GAME is not the winner of the WAR, just an intent to explain if you did BETTER than HISTORY.

So.... CSA is nearly ALWAYS going to lose the WAR, but if they have done good enough, they are going to earn MORE VPs, and finally WIN the GAME, not the WAR.

[Pemberton1]

There are so many "what if's" and "could have done's" during the war that if you debated for the rest of the year, I still think there would be many unanswered questions.

That is why this kind of discussion is so much fun.

[boboneilltexas]

I beg to differ. Lincoln almost lost the election of 64. A significant southern victory could have tipped the scales. The was was not popular in the north and the war could have ended then. The south did not need to beat the North - just hold their own.

[CWNut77]

A couple of you have beat me to the points I wanted to make here, so here's my few cents' worth...

1) I agree that the "high tide" of the CSA was basically the combination of Antietam/Perryville. Never before or after was the CSA able to seize and hold the initiative in both major theaters of the war and mount two simultaneous invasions of the North (yes, Kentucky was in my eyes "the North" at that time). Lee did bounce back and try it a second time in '63, but the reality is that by that time a victory on northern soil would likely not have gained the foreign recognition that the CSA so hoped for. After the Emancipation Proclamation (as was previously noted above), most Europeans dismissed the idea of intervention, as politically it would be suicidal. Who would want to fight against a nation that was trying to "end slavery"? Lee's only hope with the Gettysburg Campaign of '63 was to damage the Army of the Potomac bad enough to relieve some pressure on Vicksburg...and that was a gamble at best.

2) The South, indeed, always had a chance to win the war, until November of 1864. When Lincoln was re-elected, the door more or less slammed shut. Even though the South was being strangled by 1864, if the Democrats were able to field a winning candidate for President, peace might have resulted. The Democrats (with their leading Copperheads) represented the war-weary faction of the Union, and if it wasn't for the fall of Atlanta, Mobile Bay and Sheridan's successes in the Valley, they might have even pulled it off. As it was, Lincoln did not believe that he was going to win a second term, until about a month before the polls opened.

3) As a consequence, I think that the game DOES represent that the South COULD win. As in, if morale is so destroyed in the North by a certain point, that in turn represents war weariness in the Union and a willingness to end the fight. A similar occurence took place in the American Revolution, where the colonists were hopefully outclassed but had one thing on their side that proved decisive (in addition to foreign intervention) -- the will to fight on for their independence regardless of the cost. It is my view that the South had just as much will power, if not more.

[Qman39]

There are alot of interesting points raised here. The intervention question has always been intriguing to historians. There is always talk that intervention may have occurred if the Confederacy had either abolished slavery or did something to make that "peculiar institution" more palatable to the Europeans. Personally, I find it hard to believe that slavery alone would have prevented either England or France from recognizing the South given the complicity of those powers with the slave trade not so long before the Civil War started.

I have also wondered often if Gettysburg had turned out differently how much that would have impacted the course of the war. Had Stonewall Jackson been alive and Cemetery Hill taken on the first day things could have been different both militarily and politically.

[CWNut77]

There are alot of interesting points raised here. The intervention question has always been intriguing to historians. There is always talk that intervention may have occurred if the Confederacy had either abolished slavery or did something to make that "peculiar institution" more palatable to the Europeans. Personally, I find it hard to believe that slavery alone would have prevented either England or France from recognizing the South given the complicity of those powers with the slave trade not so long before the Civil War started.

I have also wondered often if Gettysburg had turned out differently how much that would have impacted the course of the war. Had Stonewall Jackson been alive and Cemetery Hill taken on the first day things could have been different both militarily and politically.

I believe that if Lee would have won at Antietam AND if Bragg were to somehow convince Kentucky to switch sides...then Europe would have intervened. You have to remember that Britain and France were monarchies, and they would have loved to see the democracy of the U.S. fail when it was not even 100 years old. However, as was previously pointed out, slavery was the key, and the emancipation proclamation put that issue to the forefront. By this point in time, I believe the CSA/USA was the only major nation in the world that was actively using black slaves, and the institution had become an anachronism everywhere else. The Confederacy would have to have proved that it COULD win decisive victories on Northern soil, BEFORE the Emancipation Proclamation was announced (hence, no recognition if Lee won Gettysburg) in order for foreign intervention to become possible.

Now, the Stonewall Jackson argument is more curious. I DO believe that if he were at Gettysburg the Confederates would have most likely have been victorious (I believe you meant Culp's Hill above BTW). The big reason Lee lost that battle was due, IMHO, to his subordinates, who were either too new to their commands or were unlikely procrastinators. If the structure from Chancellorsville would have remained intact, AND if Stuart had done his screening duties properly, the battle would have been won...though it is doubtful if Lee could have "destroyed" the Army of the Potomac as he had envisioned. The real question is, what would the results have been? Lee could not have stayed in Pennsylvania for long, as Southern supply lines were inadequate for a sustained invasion...however, the Lincoln Administration just may have pulled enough of Grant's forces away from Vicksburg to alter the course of the war. It would have continued in a different light back in Virginia or maybe even Maryland...and the war weariness might have caused defeat for the North...but the war would not have ended with a Confederate victory at Gettysburg. A lot of "what ifs" come into this equation, indeed.

[Qman39]

You are indeed correct that I was referring to Culp's Hill....thank you. I agree that there are so many interesting "what ifs" had Gettysburg had resulted in a Confederate victory. It has been speculated that if Lee had been in a position to move towards Washington that panic and political pressure may have compelled Lincoln to seek peace terms. Based on Lincoln's determination I think it unlikely that he would have sought terms even if Washington had been directly threatened. Thoughts?

[CWNut77]

You are indeed correct that I was referring to Culp's Hill....thank you. I agree that there are so many interesting "what ifs" had Gettysburg had resulted in a Confederate victory. It has been speculated that if Lee had been in a position to move towards Washington that panic and political pressure may have compelled Lincoln to seek peace terms. Based on Lincoln's determination I think it unlikely that he would have sought terms even if Washington had been directly threatened. Thoughts?

Well, I do not think that it would have been that simple. Lincoln was a stubborn individual -- he would have pulled Grant's whole army east for the defence of Washington and moved Banks up to the siege of Vicksburg, before he would negotiate terms. But yes, panic would ensue if Washington were threatened by the Army of Northern Virginia...and who knows what would eventually result?

[boboneilltexas]

It would be nice if the game included a certain number of victory points and/or key cities/states that if November 1863 had rolled around with the CSA holding these, the South would win. Points could also be given for having raided or holding for a while key cities. Chicago, Philly, etc.

[Banks6060]

I'd have to agree that the war was essentially lost after the two northern incursions by the rebs in 1862. From that point on, the political struggle in the North was asuaged. It was clear that Lincoln and the Republican party was fighting, not only to preserve the Union, but to end slavery...and they were committed to seeing the thing through to the bitter end. I believe that the '64 elections would have resulted in a re-election of Lincoln anyway, because the party would have been able to sell to the voters, the fruitlessness of continued Southern opposition. The war hung in the balance in August, September and October 1862, but was never so AFTER that time. Even after Fredricksburg. Of course that is my opinion based on the facts.

As far as the game is concerned. It does a great job of putting the Confederate player in a position to win. But if the player does not do so before the summer of 1863...he will probably face a long greuling struggle of defensive war, just like was historically true. The material advantages of the north are simply insurmountable past that point. By the time the south actually surrendered....the North was actually JUST starting to hit it's stride. They probably could have fought the war for another 2 to 3 years if they had to....(and according to some southern sympathizers they did).

As the South in AACW you've got another small shot in 1864...to cause such greivous casualties to the Union that NM drops below 60. But that is virtually impossible to do in the face of a solid PBEM opponent. (sorry but I can only measure the competition in this game in terms of PBEM...I just can't bring myself to fully enjoy a game against the AI at this point.)

[FM WarB]

Vicksburg and the loss of Pemberton's army was the key in 1863. Lee refused to send Longstreet's corps west that spring, yet felt able to do so after Gettysburg! If Jackson takes Culp's Hill, Meade will use the Pipe Creek plan he had been concocting to stop Lee there. Of course, I have seen arguments that taking Culps Hill after driving 11th Corps on day one was actually NOT practicable.
This topic will always stimulate interesting discussion. It should be realized that the task of conquest faced by the north was difficult, and no way a sure thing.

[Banks6060]

Vicksburg and the loss of Pemberton's army was the key in 1863. Lee refused to send Longstreet's corps west that spring, yet felt able to do so after Gettysburg! If Jackson takes Culp's Hill, Meade will use the Pipe Creek plan he had been concocting to stop Lee there. Of course, I have seen arguments that taking Culps Hill after driving 11th Corps on day one was actually NOT practicable.
This topic will always stimulate interesting discussion. It should be realized that the task of conquest faced by the north was difficult, and no way a sure thing.

Indeed...but it's irrefutable that the north had a very easily attainable goal...Scott orginially wanted to just squeeze with his "Anaconda" alone and play defense everywhere else. In hindsight...it probably would have been the better thing for the north to do.

[CWNut77]

Indeed...but it's irrefutable that the north had a very easily attainable goal...Scott orginially wanted to just squeeze with his "Anaconda" alone and play defense everywhere else. In hindsight...it probably would have been the better thing for the north to do.

It DEFINITELY would have been the better thing for the North to do...and they DID do this eventually, if you look at the year and a half they spent on closing the Mississippi River and strengthening the blockade. Unfortunately, in the early months of the war everything had a different light on it...and if Lincoln would have fully adopted Scott's plan it would appear that he was admitting that the South was a formidable foe...something the citizens of the North did NOT want to hear at all. Lincoln was forced to give in to the practice of swift victory with inept political generals and green troops...and only after many a man died did he (and the rest of the North) come to see that the struggle would be a long one.

[Brochgale]

I am not a proponent of the Lost Cause School of thinking. The South could have won the war but it didin't. The Scots Won thier War of Independence against the military power of western Europe at the time - if they had adopted a lost cause attitude - well lets just say I am happy I was born Scottish and not English.
There are other examples of other struggles in history where those who fought against apparently overwhelming odds won.
The Americans won thier war of Independence when if it was up to the bookies the Americans should not have bothered turning up for it.
Nothing is inevitable.

[Banks6060]

As much as I hate to say it...we'da been screwed if it hadn't been for the Frenchies in 1780's toward the end of the Revolutionary War. I'll be the first to admit that....and personally I wish the American public school system would get away from the patriotic BS and tell the truth about the war...although I suppose I can understand the propaganda. and on the flip side of that...focusing on the diplomatic GENIOUS of Benjamin Franklin would still give the ol' U.S. of A. a positive spin. Of course we repaid the favor in 1944-45

But as for the lost cause in general. No, I certainly think the south had a solid shot...considering the North's perceived need to get things over with quickly. just not after Antietam. The Brits were hurtin' bad in the cotton department by that time I think, and with Lee's success in the Penninsula and Northern Virginia Campaigns, coupled with Jackson's earlier success in the valley and Bragg's ability to side-step an entire Union army....the Brits and possibly the French were VERY close jumping in on the south's side....they just needed the political impetus to do it....which (fortunate for us) never happened.

[cobraII]

the french said that they would only join the war if england would have also

[TheDoctorKing]

There are alot of interesting points raised here. The intervention question has always been intriguing to historians. There is always talk that intervention may have occurred if the Confederacy had either abolished slavery or did something to make that "peculiar institution" more palatable to the Europeans. Personally, I find it hard to believe that slavery alone would have prevented either England or France from recognizing the South given the complicity of those powers with the slave trade not so long before the Civil War started.

There had been a remarkable change in both British and French politics since the days when they had been involved in the slave trade and holding hundreds of thousands of slaves themselves in their Caribbean colonies. The British evangelical uprising that led to the end of the slave trade in 1807 and the abolition of slavery in 1834 was a "no going back" sort of moment. King William IV had been a major slave owner and a big backer of slavery in the Parliament but by the time he became King he knew he couldn't buck the trend. In France, it took a little longer, but by 1848 the French people had decided that slavery was immoral. Napoleon III was a shrewd politician -- if not quite the military leader his famous uncle had been -- and he knew he could push his people only so far. I agree that European intervention was inconceivable after the Emancipation Proclamation.

But Lincoln could certainly have lost the election of 1864. It is not exactly clear that this would have led to a quick end to the war, though. The Democrats were running on a platform of reunification, just not "hard war". So Sherman's pillaging of the deep south or Sheridan's burning of the Valley would not have been acceptable but it isn't clear to me that President McClellan would have accepted southern independence. And remember, he wouldn't have been sworn in until March, 1865, by which point the war was nearly over anyway. Perhaps the Democrats would have tried some sort of face-saving diplomatic maneuver that would have had the same result in the long run. Too many northerners were unwilling to accept the division of the country even if they might have tolerated continuation of slavery or been willing to pay masters for their "property" or what have you.

In any case, by 1864 southern society was irretrievably broken. Huge percentages of southern white men had become casualties, and huge percentages of southern blacks had left their homes. Agricultural production was not coming back for years because of loss of markets, destruction of capital goods, and labor shortages. Industry (such as it was) and infrastructure had been destroyed. Even if the CSA had gained its independence in 1864, it would have been a poorhouse for half a century to come. They probably were better off surrendering. At least then Yankee carpetbaggers showed up with some investment capital.

[Mickey3D]

[...] The Brits were hurtin' bad in the cotton department by that time [...]

Brits turned to cotton growing in Egypt and they were somewhat relying on northern corn.

[Brochgale]

As much as I hate to say it...we'da been screwed if it hadn't been for the Frenchies in 1780's toward the end of the Revolutionary War. I'll be the first to admit that....and personally I wish the American public school system would get away from the patriotic BS and tell the truth about the war...although I suppose I can understand the propaganda. and on the flip side of that...focusing on the diplomatic GENIOUS of Benjamin Franklin would still give the ol' U.S. of A. a positive spin. Of course we repaid the favor in 1944-45

But as for the lost cause in general. No, I certainly think the south had a solid shot...considering the North's perceived need to get things over with quickly. just not after Antietam. The Brits were hurtin' bad in the cotton department by that time I think, and with Lee's success in the Penninsula and Northern Virginia Campaigns, coupled with Jackson's earlier success in the valley and Bragg's ability to side-step an entire Union army....the Brits and possibly the French were VERY close jumping in on the south's side....they just needed the political impetus to do it....which (fortunate for us) never happened.

I am not an advocate of the lost school of war! Or that certain outcomes are inevtiable! In history - we often get taught a lot of BS -Stuff that insults the intelligence.
I read a lot of the history of warfare and of historical battles and a hell of a lot of it insults my intelligence - you look at things and you say that this could not have happenned as the military historians say because it justs runs against even common sense.
Even Generals on a battlefield often operate on incorrect assumptions - like Lees assumption that the CSA Artillery could give effective support and covering fire for Pickets charge!
It does not necessarily follow that Brit and French intervention on the side of the South would have changed the result either - it might have had opposite effect of firing up the yankees with untold consequences?

[TommH]

THe "Lost Cause" version of the war is mean to create a Myth that had several purposes.

It was meant to shield the erstwhile leaders of the Conferacy form blame for losing. It was also meant to make the causes of the war whatever would put the south in the best possible light. Thus they fought for "honor" and "States rights" even though they had no chance.

It also nearly diefies some of the Southern generals (especially RE Lee and Jackson). This serves to by association give legitemacy to a group that lead their section of the country into a ruinious and losing factional struggle.

That slavery was the root of the Civil war is without serious question. As it became less and less palatable to admit this other reasons had to be created.

DOn't get me wrong by the way. Unlike some current writers I have a high opinion of RE Lee and to a lesser extent Jackson's generalling. But in the South they practically have shrines to the man's horse!

[Sgt_of_the_24th_MI]

I beg to differ. Lincoln almost lost the election of 64. A significant southern victory could have tipped the scales. The was was not popular in the north and the war could have ended then. The south did not need to beat the North - just hold their own.

But by the election of 64 the likelyhood of the CSA winning a significant victory was pretty slim...perhaps only to force another Fredricksburg or the like on the North.

[tagwyn]

Read Gingrich's book on Gettyburg. Alternative history. Lee destroyed AoP and took Baltimore. Grant brought his army East and defeated Lee in an improbable battle. However, Lee could have won Gettysburg; Hood had a chance to defeat Schofield S. of Nashville and then turn on Thomas. If and buts were candy and nuts ... . :Papy:

[Doomwalker]

As much as I hate to say it...we'da been screwed if it hadn't been for the Frenchies in 1780's toward the end of the Revolutionary War. I'll be the first to admit that....and personally I wish the American public school system would get away from the patriotic BS and tell the truth about the war...although I suppose I can understand the propaganda. and on the flip side of that...focusing on the diplomatic GENIOUS of Benjamin Franklin would still give the ol' U.S. of A. a positive spin. Of course we repaid the favor in 1944-45

But as for the lost cause in general. No, I certainly think the south had a solid shot...considering the North's perceived need to get things over with quickly. just not after Antietam. The Brits were hurtin' bad in the cotton department by that time I think, and with Lee's success in the Penninsula and Northern Virginia Campaigns, coupled with Jackson's earlier success in the valley and Bragg's ability to side-step an entire Union army....the Brits and possibly the French were VERY close jumping in on the south's side....they just needed the political impetus to do it....which (fortunate for us) never happened.

I totally agree with that first paragraph.

As far as the second, I have my doubts. In my recent readings it states that the European powers where good on cotton, and goes on to say that in 1862 the British where selling cotton to the North. Basically the embargo on cotton made the Unions blockade effective before it could blockade the South on its own. The book goes on to state that the South had droves of volunteers, but nothing to arm them with. I do believe that if the South had used those first few months to acquire war materials, and material for infrastructure; that they would have stood a much greater chance to win independence.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[TommH]

TO me an interesting "counterfactual" is what if the North had wone first Bull Run? Could there have been a short version of the ASW?

Given the armies of the time Its pretty likely that they would have been just as incapable of pursuit as the Southern forces were, but a loss early would have reall boosted Union morale and hurt Confederate. The belief in their own superiority was historically one of the SOuths strengths (although it did have its down side just ask Pickett).

[Coffee Sergeant]

Actually, historically, once Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, the British government had its hands tied and could not intervene. The French govt, would not intervene without British cooperation, and the Russians were firmly on the northern side from the start. At that point the south was doomed, though they tried and tried to get diplomatic support, they were basically snubbed. Cotton would not have made any difference at that point.

Lincoln held off on the Emancipation Proclamation until Antietam to give him the "victory" he needed. But what if Lee had beat McClellan at Antietam? Does Lincoln still issue the E.P.?

Aside from the slavery question, wouldn't dividing the U.S., who was becoming a major industrial and trade competitor, look attractive to Britain?

[Doomwalker]

Aside from the slavery question, wouldn't dividing the U.S., who was becoming a major industrial and trade competitor, look attractive to Britain?

I have wondered about this myself. Sparked a pretty good debate between my 3 brothers at a Thanks Giving dinner once. Mother (a Southerner at heart) was not happy, dad (unbiased) thought it was quiet funny.

[TommH]

Perhaps, although those sorts of playing both sided against each other can often backfire.

Hee's three other good reasons for the British to stay out.

Canada was at serious risk. It wouldn't have taken much to snap up all or part of it and taking it back from the NOrth woulod have been extremely difficult if not impossible.

British merchant marine. Much of the world had reflagged to Britian due to the CSA's commerce raiders. Imagine the kind of raiding of the British merchant marine the North could have pulled off. ll these gfains would have been wipped out and replaced with crippling losses to a nation that was dependent on overseas trade.

Wheat. The introduction of the McCormic reaper in the North was producing huge Wheat harvests that were providing cheap bread to rest of Europe, to Britian and her colonies. Cutting off those shipments would have made Whitehall VERY unpopular witrh its own people as well as the rest of Europe.