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

[Klystron]

Even if the OP's premise lacked foundation, possibly skirted forum rules and some later posts indicated recalcitrance to recalibrate a thesis; the thread explored several interesting narratives.

When the libraries open again, I look forward to reading Shelby Foote and recent Civil War period histories.

 

[phinds]

Even if the OP's premise lacked foundation, possibly skirted forum rules and some later posts indicated recalcitrance to recalibrate a thesis; the thread explored several interesting narratives.

When the libraries open again, I look forward to reading Shelby Foote and recent Civil War period histories.

You can probably stream Ken Burn's Civil war documentary.

 

[jedishrfu]

Or better yet his Baseball one too.

 

[Mondayman]

Even if the OP's premise lacked foundation, possibly skirted forum rules and some later posts indicated recalcitrance to recalibrate a thesis; the thread explored several interesting narratives.

When the libraries open again, I look forward to reading Shelby Foote and recent Civil War period histories.

Indeed, personally I would like to see more military history threads on PF. Good for generating interesting discussion.

 

[phinds]

Or better yet his Baseball one too.

That one was good but did not compare to his series on the Roosevelts

 

[StatGuy2000]

The problem I have with counterfactual arguments about differences in historical outcomes is that such discussions rest on assumptions that inherently cannot be assessed, as well as the discounting of chance or seemingly random events in the shaping of said historical events.

For example, how much of the relative strengths and successes or failures of the Union and Confederate forces in the US during the American Civil War are due to chance events?

 

[Bystander]

more military history threads on PF.

Gets into politics TOO quickly, therefore, verboten.

 

[timmeister37]

Or better yet his Baseball one too.

On the baseball documentary, i kept waiting for the part when the narrator would talk about when most baseball players started wearing jockstraps with protective cups, and it was never even mentioned! How did people bat with any confidence without a protective cup before the advent of protective cups?

 

[jedishrfu]

It aired on PBS and they may have been squeamish about the topic.

They did have one about the Merkle Boner:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkle's_Boner

I think it was an amazing miscarriage of the rules. Merkle failed to tag second base. A player saw that and while the fans were running all over the field found the ball (or subbed in a different ball) and tagged the base and declared him out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Merkle

In the bottom of the 9th inning, Merkle came to bat with two outs, and the score tied 1–1. At the time, Moose McCormick was on first base. Merkle singled and McCormick advanced to third base. Al Bridwell, the next batter, followed with a single of his own. McCormick trotted to home plate, apparently scoring the winning run. The fans in attendance, under the impression that the game was over, ran onto the field to celebrate.

Meanwhile, Merkle ran to the Giants' clubhouse without touching second base.

Cubs second baseman Johnny Evers noticed this, and after retrieving a ball and touching second base, he appealed to umpire Hank O'Day, who later managed the Cubs, to call Merkle out. Since Merkle had not touched the base, the umpire called him out on a force play, meaning that McCormick's run did not count.

The run was therefore nullified, the Giants' victory erased, and the score of the game remained tied. Unfortunately, the thousands of fans on the field (as well as the growing darkness in the days long before large electric lights made night games possible) prevented resumption of the game, and it was declared a tie. The Giants and the Cubs ended the season tied for first place and had a rematch at the Polo Grounds, on October 8. The Cubs won this makeup game, 4–2, thus the National League pennant.

 

[russ_watters]

For example, how much of the relative strengths and successes or failures of the Union and Confederate forces in the US during the American Civil War are due to chance events?

For example, the weather plays a huge role in war.

 

[Astronuc]

For example, the weather plays a huge role in war.

For example, rain and unpaved roads = mud.

High winds affect ballistic trajectories, especially for long range or high altitude artillery.

Disease/illness, e.g., dysentery, is another factor.

 

[HallsofIvy]

One problem the North had was that the onus of the offensive lay on the North and bad weather tends to hurt the offense more than the defense. Also the new rifled muskets, not to mention rifled cannon, tended to give the defensive the edge. Lee's two attempts to invade the north, which led to the South's worst defeats, were probably bad mistakes.

 

[TeethWhitener]

Now if only these generals had read Sun Tze's Art of War instead of Clausiwitz things would have been different.

Everybody likes to crap on Clausewitz, but when he works, he works (just look at the spanking the Iraqis got in Desert Storm). Remember, Clausewitz was familiar with most of the features that would come into play in the Civil War; after all, On War was written largely in response to Napoleon’s stunning successes—and equally stunning collapse—and the Napoleonic wars really had it all: insurgency (what Clausewitz called “People’s War”), conventional warfare, siege warfare, varying terrains and climates, not to mention the growing importance of technologies such as rifled muskets. The only big thing Clausewitz doesn’t really touch on is naval warfare.

Most of the objection to Clausewitz has been the misperception that he advocated a direct approach to strategy (as opposed to the indirect approach of Sun Tzu or, more recently, Liddell Hart). But Clausewitz himself advocated, for instance, that it’s better to march around an enemy fortification than through it (and using this idea, devised principles for proper placement of defensive fortifications). He also spelled out the notion of asymmetry of defense and offense, which naturally leads to the conclusion that a direct offense requires many more times the firepower and resources than defending against that direct offense. In this sense, the North proceeded as they should have in the Civil War.

 

[jedishrfu]

The battle between Clausewitz and Sun Tzu actually comes to a head in the battle for China in the 1940's where the Nationalists used western strategies of Clausewitz and the Communists used Sun Tzu.

The major difference was in Sun Tzu's strategy to attack the weak spots of the enemy rather than go head to head against a superior force. A strategy Quantrell's Raiders used to great effect during the Civil War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Quantrill

In Sun Tzu's case, he would have the enemy chasing him around as he attacked poorly defended installations.

 

[TeethWhitener]

The battle between Clausewitz and Sun Tzu actually comes to a head in the battle for China in the 1940's where the Nationalists used western strategies of Clausewitz and the Communists used Sun Tzu.

Is this really the case? By this point, the direct approach was discredited by the insanity of WWI and folks like Liddell Hart picking up the pieces and favoring indirectness (Liddell Hart fought in WWI).

Regardless, I still think it’s largely a misunderstanding of Clausewitz. Several others have argued a similar point, e.g.:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41296-018-0272-x

 

[Vanadium 50]

Before we beat on Clausewitz too much, I think his "politics by other means" comment is germane. The South started the war because they felt a political solution didn't exist. However, had they thought it through, they would have realized that a war wouldn't create such a solution. (Ignoring crazy options like the Golden Circle)

 

[Drakkith]

However, had they thought it through, they would have realized that a war wouldn't create such a solution. (Ignoring crazy options like the Golden Circle)

But! But thinking is hard!

 

[Astronuc]

But! But thinking is hard!

Not for physicists! Thinking is what physicists and PFers do!

 

[Klystron]

I have been skimming/reading comments accompanying various articles in prominent digital newspapers for the past year in an attempt to understand some of the thinking underlying current US politics. Certain themes emerge.

I am appalled at blase suggestions that a 'second American Civil War' is not only inevitable but righteous even desirable in place of reasoned discourse and thoughtful compromise. Even a cursory understanding of the carnage and suffering unleashed by civil wars throughout history should make this idea untenable to all but the depraved. Ignoring morality in order examine the practical, whom do these armchair generals expect to be fighting?

One reason to contribute to threads that rationally examine history is to continually educate and remind ourselves of previous folly in order to avoid repeating past errors.

 

[timmeister37]

I'm no historian but a lot of your points seem to be "monday morning quarterbacking." The plan you lay out for how the confederates should have or could have waged the war depends on rapid accurate communication that simply was not available in the 1860s. As to the preparation in the run up to the war, who knew that war would actually break out? Who knew which states would and would not secede? Politics and policy are inherently messy, things develop one day at a time. So some chaos and mistakes are inevitable.

As an aside, arguments from authority hold no water, but... an offhand dismissal of Shelby Foote's views seems ill-advised.

Among historians, Shelby Foote is considered as a storyteller not a real historian. Foote's trilogy relies almost exclusively on secondary sources. He did little or no original research. He did not even provide any footnotes in his trilogy.

Most people on this thread seem to agree with gmax's comment in post #9 that dismissing Foote's assertion that the South never had a chance to win the civil war is ill-advised. Gmax's post #9 got 7 likes.

ACW historians James McPherson, Gary Gallagher, and Kenneth Gott all contend that the South did have a chance to win the ACW.

Gary Gallagher said that the South could have won the CW in a video in a public conference about comparing & contrasting Lincoln and jeff davis. This video is on youtube. I will prolly provide instructions on how to access in a later post or just edit this post to add it.

In the epilogue of James mcpherson's book battle cry of freedom, mcpherson said that the imbalance in resources did NOT make it strictly preordained that the North would win. Mcpherson points out that in terms of resources, the Netherlands won their war against spain to gain their independence despite being more outmatched against spain in terms of resources than the confederacy was outmatched against the union in resources.

In Kenneth gott's book Where the South lost the war, Gott's thesis is that the south lost the war at forts henry and donelson, which implies that the south had a chance in thr first place or there would be nothing to lose.

I find it ironic that a bunch of posters on physics forums think they know better than the consensus of ACW historiams about whether or not the south had a chance to win the ACW!

 

[timmeister37]

To see proof that emminent ACW Historian Gary Gallagher agrees with my thesis, go to youtube and search for a video titled "Lincoln and Davis: War Presidents". At about 4 minutes into the video, Gallagher unequivocally states that the South did have a chance to win the Civil War and gallagher even states "Don't be beguiled by Shelby Foote, who says that 'The North fought that war with one hand tied behind their back..."

 

[timmeister37]

FYI, this is not how this forum works. All posts must be consistent with the professional literature on the topic. That includes historical analysis. The proper response to such a request would have been simply to cite Gallagher, McPherson, or Gott where they made similar claims.

Please realize that this is an essential part of what makes PF different from other sites. Such a request for references should always be honored and complied with here.

I give references to Gallagher, McPherson, and Gott in posts 110 and 111.

 

[HallsofIvy]

I'm inclined to agree that the south "never had a chance to win the war" but it was not clear at the time! What chance the south had to win did not depend upon its resources but on the will of the northern people. There were plenty of people in the north who were willing to "sweep the problem (of slavery) under the rug" by letting the south go. As I said before, many northern leaders did not believe the people had sufficient will. Even Abraham Lincoln thought he would lose the 1864 election.

 

[BillTre]

I give references to Gallagher, McPherson, and Gott in posts 110 and 111.

Please provide links.

 

[HallsofIvy]

Thought I'd ask for information here. I have read (but no longer remember where) that the reason Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, and other Confederate leaders were never tried for treason was that such a case would clearly have wound up in the Supreme Court and people were concerned that there was a distinct possibility that the Supreme Court, ruling solely on constitutional law, would determine that states did have the right to secede!

Any information or thoughts on that?

 

[Drakkith]

I find it ironic that a bunch of posters on physics forums think they know better than the consensus of ACW historiams about whether or not the south had a chance to win the ACW!

If you reread the thread I think you'll find multiple people who have readily agreed that the south had some chance to win. The questions are how big of a chance did they have, and by what means would they have won?

In the epilogue of James mcpherson's book battle cry of freedom, mcpherson said that the imbalance in resources did NOT make it strictly preordained that the North would win. Mcpherson points out that in terms of resources, the Netherlands won their war against spain to gain their independence despite being more outmatched against spain in terms of resources than the confederacy was outmatched against the union in resources.

I'm not familiar with this particular conflict, but I think I can safely say that the ACW was an entirely different beast compared to Netherlands was for independence. The ACW is widely regarded as one of the first industrial wars in history, a type of war that is very different from the ones that came before. Not that this means that I agree that the south had zero chance to win. I absolutely think they did have a chance. I only mean to point out that the parallels you can draw between the ACW and the Netherlands war against Spain are very limited.

In Kenneth gott's book Where the South lost the war, Gott's thesis is that the south lost the war at forts henry and donelson, which implies that the south had a chance in thr first place or there would be nothing to lose.

I'm sure Gott has a line of reasoning that leads him to this, but without knowing it I can't comment on it. All I can say is that if the Union doesn't take forts Henry and Donelson, what happens instead? More specifically, why don't they take them? What events happen instead of actual history? I find is extremely difficult to believe that the outcome of an entire war depends upon taking two forts during the first year of the war.

 

[Vanadium 50]

that there was a distinct possibility that the Supreme Court, ruling solely on constitutional law, would determine that states did have the right to secede!

Any information or thoughts on that?

The Chase court ruled (5-3) in Texas v. White that states did not have the right to secede. Specifically, that Texas remained a state throughout the Civil War. This is in 1869. If there were a treason trial in, say. 1866, there would have been a ninth justice, John Canton. While one vote wouldn't have mattered, Canton was an anti-secessionist from Tennessee, so it would like be 6-3.

Of course, just because a fear is unwarranted doesn't mean it isn't there.

 

[member 656954]

I find it ironic that a bunch of posters on physics forums think they know better than the consensus of ACW historiams about whether or not the south had a chance to win the ACW!

Do you normally denigrate people when they disagree with you, @timmeister37? Because Physics Forum has not changed its name or intent since you posted your thesis, and I can't see anyone who has been rude or impolite to you, so that says more about you than anyone else here. If you only intended to interact with ACW historians, maybe post on a specialist history site.

There is only one fact in your OP: the South lost the war. Everything else is conjecture, supposition, and opinion. The opinion may be informed...or not...but none of what any of us think or say changes the fact, as fun as discussing 'what might have been' is.

 

[timmeister37]

If you reread the thread I think you'll find multiple people who have readily agreed that the south had some chance to win. The questions are how big of a chance did they have, and by what means would they have won?
I'm not familiar with this particular conflict, but I think I can safely say that the ACW was an entirely different beast compared to Netherlands was for independence. The ACW is widely regarded as one of the first industrial wars in history, a type of war that is very different from the ones that came before. Not that this means that I agree that the south had zero chance to win. I absolutely think they did have a chance. I only mean to point out that the parallels you can draw between the ACW and the Netherlands war against Spain are very limited.
I'm sure Gott has a line of reasoning that leads him to this, but without knowing it I can't comment on it. All I can say is that if the Union doesn't take forts Henry and Donelson, what happens instead? More specifically, why don't they take them? What events happen instead of actual history? I find is extremely difficult to believe that the outcome of an entire war depends upon taking two forts during the first year of the war.

Fort Henry is on either the Tennessee river or the cumberland river, and Fort Donelson is on either the Tennessee river or cumberland river. The two rivers were the umbilical cords into the heart of the South. The artillery in the two forts made it difficult for Union ships to pass by in the river.

When the condederacy lost the two forts, the Union had ready and quick access into the heart of the South.

 

[timmeister37]

Do you normally denigrate people when they disagree with you, @timmeister37? Because Physics Forum has not changed its name or intent since you posted your thesis, and I can't see anyone who has been rude or impolite to you, so that says more about you than anyone else here. If you only intended to interact with ACW historians, maybe post on a specialist history site.

There is only one fact in your OP: the South lost the war. Everything else is conjecture, supposition, and opinion. The opinion may be informed...or not...but none of what any of us think or say changes the fact, as fun as discussing 'what might have been' is.

No. Re-read the OP.