Ok, the FAQ: Did the South stand a chance?

[John_C]

Been asked before a million times probably.
I want to ask again. Did the confederates stand a chance of having gotten away with secession?

We all know that the industrial and economic might of the Union was so much larger, so on an equal basis of numbers and firepower, the Union was going to win in the long run for sure.

But not always wars are won just because one side is stronger than the other.

So, was there a real chance that the confederates could have won by, for example, reducing the Union's will to fight (morale) because the cost for the Union was going to be too high?

Watching the Ken Burns series it says in the episode dedicated to the year 1864 that the Union was at one of its lowest points, and that maybe if Lincoln had not been re-elected, the Union would have lost its will to fight on.

So, in summary, and I'm thinking of how it relates to Ageod's game on the subject:

-Was it feasable for the South to have achieved what they wanted, that is seccede and stay seceeded? Could they have achieved this through winning a series of large battles, and in general demoralizing the Union's will to pay the cost of continuing the war?


-What other feasible opportunities did the South have, like foreign intervention?

[soccercw]

Been asked before a million times probably.
I want to ask again. Did the confederates stand a chance of having gotten away with secession?

We all know that the industrial and economic might of the Union was so much larger, so on an equal basis of numbers and firepower, the Union was going to win in the long run for sure.

But not always wars are won just because one side is stronger than the other.

So, was there a real chance that the confederates could have won by, for example, reducing the Union's will to fight (morale) because the cost for the Union was going to be too high?

Watching the Ken Burns series it says in the episode dedicated to the year 1864 that the Union was at one of its lowest points, and that maybe if Lincoln had not been re-elected, the Union would have lost its will to fight on.

So, in summary, and I'm thinking of how it relates to Ageod's game on the subject:

-Was it feasable for the South to have achieved what they wanted, that is seccede and stay seceeded? Could they have achieved this through winning a series of large battles, and in general demoralizing the Union's will to pay the cost of continuing the war?


-What other feasible opportunities did the South have, like foreign intervention?

Well this is obviously going to get opinionated answers, so in myyyy opinion...the south was in fact VERY close to gaining independence. Remember that prior to Gettysburg and Vicksburg the war had basically been one sided. And even in 64, the war weariness was so bad that a candidate ran on the premise that if he won, there would be peace, aka an independent south. Just look at today. Prior to the Iraqi war, if someone was asked if the Americans could be kicked out of there with all of our power and technology, you'd be crazy to answer yes. But as time goes on, war weariness grows. The souths goal was to just stay alive, and time was the key (even though they got much closer to ending it, much earlier in the war). Just try comparing it to the American Independence to an extent. Money+casualties+time=a country that no longer wants to fight.

[Korrigan]

Well this is obviously going to get opinionated answers

Opinionated AND respectful is OK.
But I prefer to warn everybody: No flames because I won't take any risk.

[John_C]

Ok guys, bear in mind I live in Spain so i'm asking these things because I am not as familiar with the Civil War History as some of the USA guys here, not because I wanted to raise any controversy.
The question is more technical than political here; just want to know about the South's chances to translate it to the game...

[christof139]

One-sided before Gettysburg and Vicksburg and Port Hudson, Louisiana and Helena, Arkansas?? Not really, as the South lost a lot of troops and armaments at Fts. Henry and Donelson, New Madrid and Island No. 10, Shiloh, Pea Ridge or Elkhorn Tavern and Prarie Grove in NW Arkansas and as a result lost Missouri and NW Arkansas, lost New Orleans in April, 1862, got shot-up real good during the Seven Days battles in which it also lost more troops than the North, lost Kentucky and parts of Tennessee, and was being blockaded and had lost some coastal areas as well. Most of the troops were exchanged with the North through the POW exchange system, but the armaments and the dead and permanently disabled wer lost to the CSA war effort forever.

Chris

[tc237]

It all comes down to the political and moral will of the Union.
If there was a weaker President than Lincoln, a peace might have been negotiated.

Almost similar to Churchill in WW2, who by force of will alone kept Britain strong.
Both leaders faced enormous pressure from factions within their own nation and government to negotiate a peace.

Once the Union or Allied industry started producing at full strength, it was not going to be stopped.

[John_C]

After going in deeper into the History of the Civil War, watching Ken Burn´s comprehensive documental, I just couldn't help but wonder if all those dead and all that suffering was worth it. Like it seemed like a very high price for the Union to pay just to impose that the "Union" of the States prevail. After all, what is the use of "forcing" upon so many States (the Confederacy) that they be part of a Union they didn't want to be a part of?

Sure, there was the slavery issue too, but still, would I have given an arm, a leg, or my life for that. I really wonder?

In anycase, what really interests me is whether there actually existed throughout the war a realistic moment or period when, due to the fierce defence of the Confederacy, the Union could have chosen to just negotiate a peace and live with two different countries instead of one?

[WallysWorld]

James McPherson, in his book "Battle Cry of Freedom", writes that the South had no chance of winning secession. That basically the Union fought the war with one arm tied behind its back and never did bring out the second arm. Witness Lincoln's speech in January 1865 when he said that the Union can maintain its war effort indefinitely if need be. Not withstanding some hardship, the North's economy had grown during the war, immigration had made up for any population and worker shortfall due to the war and US exports of "King Corn" were far more important to England than cotton was.

The last chance the South had to win the war was the 1864 election. But in my opinion, when the South fired the first shot at Sumter, they had effectively doomed secession.

McPherson even writes that the South did not fight all out in their own war effort. He compares the South's effort with Paraguay's awesome effort in the War of the Triple Alliance (1864-70) where the one nation held off three countries (Uruguay, Argentina and Brazil) for a number of years through fanatical commitment of its people to the war.

"The Paraguayan people had been fanatically committed to López and the war effort, and as a result they fought to the point of dissolution. Paraguay suffered massive casualties, losing perhaps the majority of its population. The war left it utterly prostrate. The specific numbers of casualties are hotly disputed, but it has been estimated that 300,000 Paraguayans, mostly civilians, died; up to 90% of the male population may have been killed. According to one numerical estimation, the prewar population of approximately 525,000 Paraguayans was reduced to about 221,000 in 1871, of which only about 28,000 were men."

War_of_the_Triple_Alliance


Even though Paraguay did lose the war, its effort was way greater than the South's effort. McPherson also claims that the South's morale was broken much earlier in the war than most historians claim.

[John_C]

So what's the point of a game on this war? Just to see if one can do better than the historical equivalent?

[WallysWorld]

So what's the point of a game on this war? Just to see if one can do better than the historical equivalent?

Because my opinion on the South's chances are just that, my opinion. For every argument I can throw to defend my view, there are many others who can use very good arguments to suggest the South could have won the war.

It's like the Pacific theatre in World War 2. Did Japan really stand a chance to win a long war against the US and the Allies? Highly doubted. But it still makes for a good game idea.

[Le Ricain]

After going in deeper into the History of the Civil War, watching Ken Burn´s comprehensive documental, I just couldn't help but wonder if all those dead and all that suffering was worth it. Like it seemed like a very high price for the Union to pay just to impose that the "Union" of the States prevail. After all, what is the use of "forcing" upon so many States (the Confederacy) that they be part of a Union they didn't want to be a part of?

Sure, there was the slavery issue too, but still, would I have given an arm, a leg, or my life for that. I really wonder?

In anycase, what really interests me is whether there actually existed throughout the war a realistic moment or period when, due to the fierce defence of the Confederacy, the Union could have chosen to just negotiate a peace and live with two different countries instead of one?

In the period before the ACW, there were two issues which divided the country. The first one, slavery, is the one that seems to get all of the attention. Preservation of slavery was key to the South.

The second issue which gets much less focus was the issue of tariffs. Tariffs are taxes paid on imported goods. Tariffs were crucial for the North as protection against cheap imported manufactured goods from Europe, principly Great Britain. The South, with its much smaller industrial base, had little use for tariffs and deeply resented having to pay them to support the Northern industries. The first thing SC did after seceding was to repeal the tariff legislation. Elimination of this hated tax was a powerful incentive for SC's neighbours to follow her lead and leave the union.

Lincoln was of two minds on whether to go to war to preserve the union or to let the South go its own way. What tipped the balance in favour of war were the industrialists who informed him that the Northern manufacturing base could probably survive cheap imports into the former southern states. However, the industrial base could not survive the competition from a flood of cheap goods into the border states and the Far West. Allowing an independent South would doom Northern industries. Lincoln had decided on war before the attack on Fort Sumter.

So, to answer your question. At no time would the North have decided that enough was enough and negotiated a peace with CSA which would have allowed an independent South short of complete defeat of the Northern armies. The future greatness of the USA would come from her industrial might.

[Pocus]

Lincoln was of two minds on whether to go to war to preserve the union or to let the South go its own way. What tipped the balance in favour of war were the industrialists who informed him that the Northern manufacturing base could probably survive cheap imports into the former southern states. However, the industrial base could not survive the competition from a flood of cheap goods into the border states and the Far West. Allowing an independent South would doom Northern industries. Lincoln had decided on war before the attack on Fort Sumter.

Industrial lobying? Woww, it reminds me of some others wars!

[John_C]

Eeeerrrrr...so did the Union soldiers, any of them, know that, besides being asked to give their lives in the "holy" war to preserve the Union and free all men, it was also to defend northern industry?

[Le Ricain]

Industrial lobying? Woww, it reminds me of some others wars!

Pocus,

The old saying is still true, 'there is nothing new under the sun'.

[Le Ricain]

Eeeerrrrr...so did the Union soldiers, any of them, know that, besides being asked to give their lives in the "holy" war to preserve the Union and free all men, it was also to defend northern industry?

I am afraid that 'Preserving the Union' has a better ring to it than 'Saving jobs'. Of course, by firing on Ft Sumter, the South removed the need for the North to come up with a justification for war.

[Spharv2]

Eeeerrrrr...so did the Union soldiers, any of them, know that, besides being asked to give their lives in the "holy" war to preserve the Union and free all men, it was also to defend northern industry?

Some of them knew it, some went for their own ideals. Just as in the South, some people went to war over tarriffs, some over slavery, and some over states rights. Basically, the war was a big, bloody, referendum on the way the country was to be run. By the Jeffersonian collection of powerful states under a limited federal government, or the Hamiltonian strong federal government over weakened states. Everyone's reasons for war basically fell under that large umbrella, and there were a lot of different reasons, but the choice really came down to who people wanted making the decisions on the issues that the country faced.

Did the South stand a chance? Sure. Lincoln basically had to tear up nearly every bit of the constitution and bill of rights to keep the North in the war. If he hadn't, the North would have been much more likely to give it up at some point. If he had gone much further, he would have faced an even stronger opposition in congress than he did. Nothing can bring the successful prosecution of a war to it's knees faster than political infighting, and the North's war effort wasn't terribly successful for a while.

I don't view Lincoln as a great president, simply because I so strongly disagree with the measures he took to continue an unjust war (Just my opinion, don't crucify me here), but he was an impeccible politician. Perhaps the single best politician ever considering the sides and issues he juggled quite successfully.

[runyan99]

Confederate defeat was far from inevitable.

If the 13 colonies could manage to win their independence by fighting a war against what was the greatest superpower in Europe, it seems illogical to argue that Southern secession was always doomed to failure, when the resources of the South vis a vis the North were much greater than those of the colonies vis a vis England.

Circumstances led to a Union victory, but different circumstances easily could have led to a Union defeat. No people ever went to war with a better chance to win their independence than did the states of the Confederacy.

[christof139]

Confederate defeat was far from inevitable.

If the 13 colonies could manage to win their independence by fighting a war against what was the greatest superpower in Europe, it seems illogical to argue that Southern secession was always doomed to failure, when the resources of the South vis a vis the North were much greater than those of the colonies vis a vis England.

Circumstances led to a Union victory, but different circumstances easily could have led to a Union defeat. No people ever went to war with a better chance to win their independence than did the states of the Confederacy.

During the time of the AWI (or (Am. Rev.), Great Britain was also engaged in wars wit France, the Netherlands, and Spain, and those 3-nation senta large amount of military supplies to the fledgling USA, as well as causing British militay forces to be diverted to face th military forces or those same 3-nations. Good chance that without Britain's involment in simultaneous struggles with tose 3-nations the USA woul have lost the war,

During the ACW, the USA was able to concentrate its full military and industrial force against only one nation, the CSA. So, maybe the AWI is not a good compariosn to use concerning the USA's and CSA's chances of winning or losing the war.

During 1864 both sides had had a belly full of the war, and both were tired and grieved at the various types of losses the war caused. Military desertion rates were higher in the CSA than the USA. Popular support for the war had dwindeled in the CSA to the same degree if not more so than in the USA. When Hood invaded Tennessee less than 200 known Tennesseans enlisted in his Army of Tennessee.

Chris

[John_C]

After Lee surrendered at Appotamoc, and the war became formally over, wasn't there a long guerrilla resistence in some places in the South?

[LMUBill]

After Lee surrendered at Appotamoc, and the war became formally over, wasn't there a long guerrilla resistence in some places in the South?

Well, there is that one guy over in Johnson City.....

[WallysWorld]

Confederate defeat was far from inevitable.
If the 13 colonies could manage to win their independence by fighting a war against what was the greatest superpower in Europe, it seems illogical to argue that Southern secession was always doomed to failure, when the resources of the South vis a vis the North were much greater than those of the colonies vis a vis England.

Sorry, I disagree and consider that southern secession was almost doomed from the beginning. I also agree with christof139 comments about comparing the Revolutionary War to the ACW. In the former, Britain had to fight a distant war and deal with other major enemies at the same time. Like christof139 wrote, the Union could throw its entire weight in the ACW without having to worry too much about secondary enemies. The only time that outsiders almost came close to affecting the ACW was the Trent Affair and for that, Lincoln knew "One war at a time".

What England faced in the Revolutionary War and what the Union faced in the ACW are completely two different affairs and shouldn't be compared.

The South's greatest hope was a Lincoln defeat in the 1864 election. I don't think the South could have won a military victory, but only a political one instead.

[tc237]

After Lee surrendered at Appotamoc, and the war became formally over, wasn't there a long guerrilla resistence in some places in the South?

Not really.
There probably was some I'm sure, but not enough to call it a "long guerrilla resistence".


Side note: this entire topic is a VERY touchy subject for Civil War buffs and historians.
It usually causes an instant flame war of the greatest magnitude on most forums.
For example, Spharv2's "I don't view Lincoln as a great president, simply because I so strongly disagree with the measures he took to continue an unjust war" is enough to incite a riot or barrage of name calling and obscenities. (I know it got me a bit hot)

With that being said, I hope we can keep it friendly and informational.

[Spharv2]

Not too much of one unless you consider the Klu Klux Klan or the Western gunmen to be a guerilla movement. By the time the war was over, most people had quite enough fighting, and just wanted to get back to a somewhat normal life. Plus, a lot of the Confederates ended up in Central and South America or Europe for a good while after the war was over.

[Spharv2]

Sorry, I disagree and consider that southern secession was almost doomed from the beginning. I also agree with christof139 comments about comparing the Revolutionary War to the ACW. In the former, Britain had to fight a distant war and deal with other major enemies at the same time. Like christof139 wrote, the Union could throw its entire weight in the ACW without having to worry too much about secondary enemies. The only time that outsiders almost came close to affecting the ACW was the Trent Affair and for that, Lincoln knew "One war at a time".

What England faced in the Revolutionary War and what the Union faced in the ACW are completely two different affairs and shouldn't be compared.

The South's greatest hope was a Lincoln defeat in the 1864 election. I don't think the South could have won a military victory, but only a political one instead.

I understand why you, and most other people who look at the war say this, but in all honesty, the North could not have done that much more. Not without severe problems anyway. Everyone looks at the potential the North had, which is enormous. But the capability to go onto the total war footing simply isn't there. They fought with one hand tied behind their back because they had to, not because they chose to. The South had to overcome even more severe issues because of the style of government they thought right.

The idea that the North, if in trouble simply could have expanded to use it's full potential is idealistic. Lincoln, no matter what he was, was not some omnipotent demigod. He was hard pressed to take the measures he did to keep the Union in the war. If he had faced much more opposition to his measures, the war could have ended very quickly, and very unhappily for the North.

[John_C]

Not really.
There probably was some I'm sure, but not enough to call it a "long guerrilla resistence".


Side note: this entire topic is a VERY touchy subject for Civil War buffs and historians.
It usually causes an instant flame war of the greatest magnitude on most forums.
For example, Spharv2's "I don't view Lincoln as a great president, simply because I so strongly disagree with the measures he took to continue an unjust war" is enough to incite a riot or barrage of name calling and obscenities. (I know it got me a bit hot)

With that being said, I hope we can keep it friendly and informational.

One thing I think about Lincoln and Davies is that they both were really ugly. They both scare me when I see their pictures.

[Spharv2]

Side note: this entire topic is a VERY touchy subject for Civil War buffs and historians.
It usually causes an instant flame war of the greatest magnitude on most forums.
For example, Spharv2's "I don't view Lincoln as a great president, simply because I so strongly disagree with the measures he took to continue an unjust war" is enough to incite a riot or barrage of name calling and obscenities. (I know it got me a bit hot)

Hehe...understandable, and kind of ya. I grew up as a fan of Lincoln, and I still admire him as a politician and a person. Behind Alexander and Julius Caesar I probably own more books on him than any other single person. It's his fast and loose use of the governmental office he held I have an issue with. And when I say I have strong Libertarian leanings, it probably makes more sense.

Don't want to get anyone riled up, they're just my views. It's possible to disagree and be friendly about it, and I'm pretty sure we can.

[tc237]

"What if" ?
From the very begining, the Union had a general similar to Grant in command of the AotP?

Wouldn't the Union, with 120,000 men available in Northern Virgina, been able to defeat the CSA within 1-2 years?

I'm just starting my self taught Civil War education, so I won't challenge you just yet .

Did read something I thought was interesting, spent 2 hours trying to find but but sadly could not so I'll paraphrase. Maybe you can expand on it.
-Lincoln believed that the Declaration of Independence was the "founding document" of the nation and not the Constitution. The DoI gave us the inalienable rights, the Constitution was just a framework that the states agreed to live within. So therefore the Constitution could be changed if the states desired-

OK that is a terrible attempt to paraphrase what I read, but I'll throw it out there for anyone that wants to debate or claen up my mess.

[John_C]

Hehe...understandable, and kind of ya. I grew up as a fan of Lincoln, and I still admire him as a politician and a person. Behind Alexander and Julius Caesar I probably own more books on him than any other single person. It's his fast and loose use of the governmental office he held I have an issue with. And when I say I have strong Libertarian leanings, it probably makes more sense.

Don't want to get anyone riled up, they're just my views. It's possible to disagree and be friendly about it, and I'm pretty sure we can.

YEAH! I propose that people resolve their flame wars on the BATTLEFIELD (AACW) and not here. That's the Southern style of doing things with honour !

[Spharv2]

"What if" ?
From the very begining, the Union had a general similar to Grant in command of the AotP?

Wouldn't the Union, with 120,000 men available in Northern Virgina, been able to defeat the CSA within 1-2 years?

I'm just starting my self taught Civil War education, so I won't challenge you just yet .

Did read something I thought was interesting, spent 2 hours trying to find but but sadly could not so I'll paraphrase. Maybe you can expand on it.
-Lincoln believed that the Declaration of Independence was the "founding document" of the nation and not the Constitution. The DoI gave us the inalienable rights, the Constitution was just a framework that the states agreed to live within. So therefore the Constitution could be changed if the states desired-

OK that is a terrible attempt to paraphrase what I read, but I'll throw it out there for anyone that wants to debate or claen up my mess.

Depends, you taking the Grant of '63-'64 or the early war Grant? If the early war version, I think he would have had the Rebels running rings around him too. Despite his experience as a quartermaster, his supply lines were awful, his command structure was nowhere near adequate, and he was basically learning as he went like most of the rest of them. He was lucky enough to face demoralized (Fts. Henry and Donelson) and poorly organized and led (Shiloh) troops early, and it nearly cost him. I think that without the battle of Shiloh and the frustrations over Vicksburg, he probably wouldn't have turned into the general he did.

[WallysWorld]

I understand why you, and most other people who look at the war say this, but in all honesty, the North could not have done that much more. Not without severe problems anyway. Everyone looks at the potential the North had, which is enormous. But the capability to go onto the total war footing simply isn't there. They fought with one hand tied behind their back because they had to, not because they chose to.

Sorry Spharv, I have to disagree. The North had the capability and capacity for fight a more all-out war than it did. Natural immigration actually boosted the population of the Union states to make up for any losses in the ACW. The economy was firing on all cylinders and the North, while experiencing some inflation, did not face (not even remotely close) any of the economic problems the South faced. When the North had (according to McPherson's book), over 90% of the total US industrial base along with over 70% of the bank deposits, the deck was clearly stacked against the South well before Sumter.

The only reason the South held on as long as they did was through superior leadership at the military level. And that superiority eroded as Union's generals such as Grant and Sherman moved up in the ranks. Once that superiority was gone (or almost gone), the collapse of the South was inevitable.