Did the South have a chance to win the Civil War?

[jedishrfu]

Thine eyes have seen the glory of the ending of this thread. We have trod the ground of battle and decided that instead we must seek the path of some finality as yet unread and so we close this thread.

Jedi

 

[Astronuc]

The moderator unlocked the thread to allow me to address some comments made about my posts.

Regarding claims that I 'changed the goal posts', that I argued that the South had no chance, and that I didn't name a single ACW historian besides Shelby Foote who argues that the South had no chance. None of that is correct.

In all my posts, I gave information from which one could derive one's own conclusion regarding the chances of CSA victory in the ACW. I never asserted the South had no chance, nor did I invoke Shelby Foote or his work.

In post #76, I emphasize several points that Steve Knott, Army War College, mentioned as to why the odds were against the CSA. I provided additional information in post #83.

In post #101, I point out some complications on the battlefield.

In post #130, I make a point about chance/probability. A chance of victory requires better then 50/50, because that's equal probability of winning or losing, and the chances I gave are diminishing. I never quantified a chance of the CSA winning, but I believe it was less than even, and probably very low. I addressed various points in the OP.

In post #131, I provided some names, some of who are historians. Most explain why the South lost, or the North won, but don't necessarily quantify a probability, but one could make a crude estimate based on population ratio as a proxy for troops and resources. Two authors, who are not historians, actually provide a probability.

In one of my posts, I provided a link to Blake Stilwell, who writes on military matters, but as far as I can tell is not a professional historian, writes "The Confederacy never had a chance." We need a historian.

In an article, Could The South Have Won?, Dr. James I. "Bud" Robertson, Jr., a noted scholar on the American Civil War and Alumni Distinguished Professor Emeritus at Virginia Tech, states, "what so many people find startling is the fact that despite the North’s enormous superiority in manpower and material, the South had a two-to-one chance of winning the contest." Ref: https://www.wvtf.org/post/could-south-have-won

However, toward the end of the article,

"Yet, as several historians have emphasized, the South’s chance of success depended upon its application of skill, unity, and dedication to overcome the North’s advantages in numbers, wealth, arms, and supplies.

That did not occur. Northern victory came became of overwhelming resources, a more effective strategy in both national and military affairs, as well as an unbreakable devotion to the Union."

I read examples of lack of skill on the part of some, disunity among the states and on the part of some officers, but some dedication. The fact that each state was responsible for its own forces and infrastructure is often cited as a reason the South lost, i.e., these deficiencies reduced the probability of CSA winning the war, or conversely increased the likelihood the CSA would lose.

Most historians don't put a probability on the South winning, but instead most explain why the South lost or why the Union/North won, and in those explanations, it sure seems the ultimately demonstrate that the CSA had little chance of winning the CW. Had the CSA prevailed at Gettysburg and moved on to Harrisburg, the South might have had an even chance at winning their independence, but only if Lincoln had acceded to the CSA demand of independence. But he didn't.

Even with the victory at Chancellorsville, the South wasn't 'winning' the war, and losing Stonewall Jackson at Chancellorsville probably reduced the likelihood of a victory at Gettysburg. The CSA needed to win at Gettysburg, push in the heart of Pennsylvania and split the Union. That didn't happen. After Gettysburg, there was still a chance for the CSA to change the tide during the campaigns in the Shenandoah Valley during 1864, but they only raided and burned Chambersburg, Pa (July 30, 1864). The CSA needed to accomplish much more. However, Union forces under Sheridan campaigns in the Shenandoah Valley.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Theater_of_the_American_Civil_War#Shenandoah_Valley_(1864–65)

In the video provided in post #69 by Stephen Tashi, Steve Knott, Army War College, explains some of the issues at Gettysburg.

I did find at least one contemporary historian who argues the South had no chance. Historian Jim McIntyre (Professor of History, Moraine Valley Community College, Palos Hills, Illinois) says when asked, "Was the Confederacy doomed to failure?," he answers "yes," and tell us why in this lecture on military strategy during the US Civil War. Interesting perspective, especially toward the Conclusions and during Q&A. In the question and answer period, one of McIntyre's colleagues does take exception to his thesis, and McIntyre acknowledges and addresses the criticism.

According to McIntyre's summary, the US population was:
Union Whites - 22,007,339
CSA Whites - 5,482,222
CSA Slaves - 3,953,760
One can check the numbers against the 1860 census - https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1864/dec/1860a.html

Assuming 50% of the population are female, and some percentage are children, then the CSA had a small population of men of age for military service, compared to the north. Just on population assuming the same ratios of male/female, fighting age, then the North had a 22:5.5 or 4:1 advantage of age appropriate males.

Other factors mentioned by McIntyre was that 97% of arms manufacturing was in the North, and only 3% in the South, and the North had 22,000 miles of railroad, and the South had 9,000

For anyone interested in railroads - https://www.american-rails.com/civil.html

And for yet another, and different, perspective, by Dr. Donald J. Stoker
"The Grand Design: Strategy and the U.S. Civil War"

 

[jedishrfu]

And thus ends a fine thread.

Will the Circle Be Unbroken...