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

  • Thread starter Thread starter timmeister37
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Civil
AI Thread Summary
Shelby Foote's assertion in Ken Burns' documentary that the North would have prevailed regardless of Southern victories is contested. The argument emphasizes that the outcome of the Civil War was not predetermined solely by resource disparities but was significantly influenced by strategic mistakes made by the Confederacy. Key errors included the premature attack on Fort Sumter, poor fortification choices, lack of unified command, and missed opportunities to stockpile supplies and establish diplomatic relations. The South's failure to adapt military strategies and coordinate effectively contributed to their losses in critical battles, such as Vicksburg and Gettysburg. The discussion suggests that had the Confederacy made different strategic choices, they might have prolonged the war and potentially altered its outcome, especially given the presence of a peace movement in the North. The debate highlights the complexity of war dynamics, where both military decisions and political contexts play crucial roles in determining outcomes.
timmeister37
Messages
124
Reaction score
25
In Ken Burns' documentary The Civil War, Shelby Foote said, "The North fought the war with one hand tied behind their back. If there had been more southern victories, and i mean a lot more, i think that the North would have just took that other arm out from behind their back. I don't think that the South had any chance to win that war." I disagree with Shelby Foote on this.

It is simplistic and juvenile to interpret the outcome of the Civil War as strictly preordained due to the imbalance in resources. Resources were a factor in limiting the South's margin of error, rather than a final determinant. There are any number of mistakes that the South made that contributed to their defeat. Strictly brainstorming, here are some of their mistakes:

1# the decision to fire on Fort Sumter instead of using that time productively diplomatically, economically, and militarily. The blockade was not in place before Fort Sumter, and the northern ships were still picking up cotton at southern ports during the time period after the formation of the Confederacy and before Fort Sumter. Before the war, the South should have used that time to trade as much cotton as they could for war materials such as rifled muskets, artillery, battleships, and other war materials. The South needed more war materials, not more cotton. Also, the South should have fortified as much as possible before the war.2# the decision to build Fort Henry in a flood plain which led to the Confederates having to abandon it due to it flooding

3# the failure to adopt and implement a plan to keep Fort Donelson from being captured by the Federals. Fort Donelson was (foolishly) designed only to protect against an attack by water, not an attack by land. 4# Also, the failure to establish a unified command structure at Fort Donelson, which made it extremely difficult for the Confederates to defend Fort Donelson. These two mistakes at Fort Donelson led not only to the Confederates losing Fort Donelson but also the capture of 10,000 Confederate troops who surrendered there.

4# the failure to adopt and implement a strategy to keep Vicksburg from being captured by the Federals. The Confederacy failed to establish a unified command structure in the Confederate forces both in Vicksburg and in the vicinity of Vicksburg. The South could have kept Vicksburg, but they did not coordinate with each other. The left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing. The CSA could have sent troops from the Army of Northern Virginia to attack Rosecrans, to draw Federal troops away from Vicksburg. The Federals took Vicksburg by siege by starving the citizens and the troops into surrendering. The Confederates should have stocked Vicksburg with non-perishable foodstuffs before the siege.

5# the failure to adopt and implement a plan to keep New Orleans from being captured by the Federals

6# the failure to adopt and implement a plan to save Atlanta from being captured

7# Pickett's charge at Gettysburg cost the South 6,000 troops that they desperately needed

8# CSA General Hood decision to make the charge at Franklin cost the South troops it desperately needed for little gain

9# the failure of the South to properly fortify the areas that they desperately needed to protect such as the Selma Ironworks, Chattanooga, Richmond, Savannah, New Orleans, and Richmond. Forts can be a great force multiplier. The SOuth could win the war just by not losing. Also, the South was greatly outnumbered. Fortifying the South would have been an effective strategy.

10# the Confederates mistake of leaving Lee's battle plans so that the Federals found them and knew Lee's plans at Antietam

11# the Confederate's picket lines accidentally shooting General Stonewall Jackson after Chancellorsville

12# The failure to immediately open the cotton trade with Europe, rather than embargo it.

13# Confederate General Polk's decision to violate Kentucky neutrality. If General Polk had not violated Kentucky neutrality, Kentucky would have provided an excellent buffer zone for the Confederacy. Kentucky neutrality would have freed up a lot of Confederate troops to defend other areas.----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The South lost the Civil War in the West. There was a substantial peace movement in the North at certain times in the war even with all these huge CSA mistakes. Imagine how strong the peace movement would have been with northern casualties doubled for far less strategic gains. Imagine how strong the peace movement would have been in the North if the South managed to keep Fort Henry, Fort Donelson, and Vicksburg. I think that the North would not have been willing to take that other hand out from behind their back if they took much heavier casualties for little or no strategic gains.
 
Last edited:
  • Skeptical
Likes BillTre
Science news on Phys.org
BillTre, if you are skeptical of my thesis, please tell me why. It is not very interesting for someone to just insert a skeptical icon and leave it at that.
 
Your post is long with a lot of what I consider disputable points while ignoring a lot of similar issues the North had.
You don't reference any analysis other than your own (other than contradicting Selby Foote) in support of your thesis.
I have better things to do than go through it point by point.
 
  • Like
Likes Astronuc
BillTre said:
Your post is long with a lot of what I consider disputable points while ignoring a lot of similar issues the North had.
You don't reference any analysis other than your own (other than contradicting Selby Foote) in support of your thesis.

I did not need to reference any historian's analysis other than my own in the OP since i provided supporting evidence for my thesis. FWIW, the historians Gary Gallagher, James McPherson, and Kenneth Gott are all on record for agreeing with my thesis.
I have better things to do than go through it point by point.
If this is the limit of intellectual engagement you are willing to give a thread, why do you even bother to come here? If you are not even going to bother to support your thesis with anything whatsoever, don't expect people to find your arguments compelling.

Your post reminds me of what the scientist Richard Dawkins calls the "argument from personal incredulity" in the evolution debate. The argument from personal incredulity is "my evidence against your thesis is that i don't believe it". LOL
 
  • Skeptical
Likes davenn and BillTre
The Republicans might have nominated some real estate developer instead of Lincoln in 1864...that would have done it.
 
  • Haha
Likes FactChecker, Astronuc, atyy and 3 others
BillTre said:
Your post is long with a lot of what I consider disputable points while ignoring a lot of similar issues the North had.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that "my post ignores a lot of similar issues that the North had." How does this negate the veracity of my thesis that the South had a chance to win the Civil War?

The North had major troop wastage in a failed charge at Fredericksburg. How does this negate my assertion that Pickett's charge wasted 6,000 Confederate troops & contributed to the Confederate defeat? Why could not Lee have used his knowledge of what happened to Federal troops who made a charge over open ground against enemy troops wntrenched behind a stone wall & decided not to launch picketts charge?
 
hutchphd said:
The Republicans might have nominated some real estate developer instead of Lincoln in 1864...that would have done it.
What real estate developer ran against Lincoln in the Republican primaries in 1864?
 
Was the South's probability of winning identically zero? No - suppose the South never missed when they shot and the North always did. The probability would be small, but not identically zero.

Now that we have established this, it's all a question "how small is too small?" and there is no scientific answer to that.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Likes Astronuc, russ_watters, phinds and 1 other person
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.
 
  • Like
Likes Astronuc, Vanadium 50, russ_watters and 4 others
  • #10
timmeister37 said:
I did not need to reference any historian's analysis other than my own in the OP since i provided supporting evidence for my thesis.
Each of your points lack support other than your own opinion.

timmeister37 said:
If this is the limit of intellectual engagement you are willing to give a thread, why do you even bother to come here?
Most posts are better and deserve a more complete response.

timmeister37 said:
What real estate developer ran against Lincoln in the Republican primaries in 1864?
Lincoln's major opponent was the failed general (George Mclellan) which was a major military hindrance to the North. You conveniently ignore his negative influence among others.
He was crushed in the election.
 
  • Like
Likes Astronuc and berkeman
  • #11
BillTre said:
Each of your points lack support other than your own opinion.

I follow the high school & college research paper standard: if i can find a fact in three independent books, it does not need to be cited.

Almost all of the Confederate mistakes i listed are commonly known facts. For instance, what Civil War buff would dispute that the Confederates picket lines accidentally shooting Stonewall jackson was a mistake?
Lincoln's major opponent was the failed general (George Mclellan) which was a major military hindrance to the North. You conveniently ignore his negative influence among others.
He was crushed in the election.

hutchpd said "the Republicans might have nominated some real estate developer instead of Lincoln in 1864. That might have done it."

There was zero chance that the Republicans were going to nominate McClellan to run on the Republican ticket in 1864 instead of Lincoln. McClellan ran on the Democratic ticket.

I don't see why you think my not mentioning McClellan is convenient for me. McClellan was a Peace Democrat. If McClellan won the election, it would help the South win the war. My thesis is that the South could have won.
 
  • #12
Vanadium 50 said:
Was the South's probability of winning identically zero? No - suppose the South never missed when they shot and the North always did. The probability would be small, but not identically zero.

Now that we have established this, it's all a question "how small is too small?" and there is no scientific answer to that.

That is ridiculous. It is totally ridiculous to base an assertion that the South could have won on the premise that the Confederate soldiers could have just never missed their shots. You are expecting constant miracles with such a premise.

It would not have been ridiculous for the Confederacy to have chosen not to fire on Fort Sumter. You fire on a federal fort and of course there will be war. Davis & most of his cabinet were in favor of firing on fort sumter based on testosterone & ego and the idea that "one southern gentlemen is worth seven yankee hirlings." Tombs agreed with me and warned Davis: " It puts us in the wrong. It will cost us every friend we have in the North. It is fatal." Toombs did not even have the benefit of hindsight. It would not have taken any miracles for the Confederacy to not fire on fort sumter.

It would not have taken any miracles for the confederates to do a proper land survey and not build fort henry in a flood plain.

It would not take any miracles for General Lee to follow General longstreet's advice ( who told lee exactly why picketts charge would fail) and not order picketts charge.

The Confederate mistakes i list as costing the south the war would not require any ridiculous miracles to happen.
 
  • #13
gmax137 said:
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?

The Confederates should have known that war would break out if they fired on Fort Sumter. It was Lincoln's constitutional duty to defend all federal forts. The idea that it should have been a big surprise to confederate leaders that if firing on a federal fort and conquering & taking over a Federal fort would start a war is beyond laughable.With the benefit of monday morning quarterbacking, it is clear that it was possible and would not require any miracles for the south to win.
 
  • #14
timmeister37 said:
That is ridiculous.

It demonstrates that p > 0. That was your original point.

Your new point seems to be that your Fourteen Points thirteen points form a sufficient set of conditions for the South to have won. Well, maybe.
 
  • Like
Likes timmeister37
  • #15
timmeister37 said:
I follow the high school & college research paper standard: if i can find a fact in three independent books, it does not need to be cited.
I'm unconvinced but this argument.
There are probably just short of a million books on the civil war. Many probably not of great quality.
There is also a strong tradition in the South of Romanticizing the Civil War. This can be motivation for coming to particular conclusions.

timmeister37 said:
I don't see why you think my not mentioning McClellan is convenient for me. McClellan was a Peace Democrat. If McClellan won the election, it would help the South win the war. My thesis is that the South could have won.
Before he was a peace candidate, he was a highly ineffective field general (however, good at logistics I have read).
This is one of many things that prevented early North success.
You bemoan the loss of Stonewall Jackson (considered a very good general), but ignore the luck of the draw of the many other personalities involved.
It just seems very slanted to me.

What if Grant had been in charge from the beginning?
Its just another what if...
 
  • #16
Vanadium 50 said:
It demonstrates that p > 0. That was your original point.

Your new point seems to be that your Fourteen Points thirteen points form a sufficient set of conditions for the South to have won. Well, maybe.
I took your post #8 to be saying that it would require a miracle like every Confederate soldier hitting his target on every musket shot for the South to win.

It would not require any miracles like that for the South to win.
 
  • #17
Maybe there is a Civil War strategy game you could get to satisfy your interest.
You could than try exploring your conjectural history.
 
  • #18
Vanadium 50 said:
It demonstrates that p > 0. That was your original point.

Your new point seems to be that your Fourteen Points thirteen points form a sufficient set of conditions for the South to have won. Well, maybe.
I don't understand why you think that "p is greater than zero" was my original point. p is a letter, not a number, so you are really comparing apples and oranges.
 
  • #19
BillTre, just out of curiosity, do you think that the South ever had any chance to win the Civil War?
 
  • #20
I enjoyed reading the original post. Most items highlight the poor planning, lack of organization and general bull-headed arrogance that typify the Confederacy. Inferior communications, dependence on human slave muscle power instead of technology, deluded mythology and revisionism in place of reason doomed the Confederacy before a shot was fired.

I read Shelby Foote long before he collaborated with Ken Burns to create "The Civil War" on PBS. Foote loves the South and by his own admission would have followed the Confederacy into battle. He adores and admires Robert E. Lee while providing a balanced narrative of the General's life, times and place in history. If the Confederacy had a viable path to victory and sustained quality of life for its citizens, no respected historian has mapped it.

Shelby Foote's historical insight and compassion for the Lost Cause echo in his haunting narratives that accompany Burn's displays of contemporary photographs and letters. My mother lived in the South during school breaks and taught us positive aspects of the culture and proud heritage. I lived for a year while attending school in the deep South and served with many Southerners. My closest relative after my parents was born and raised in West Virginia. All veterans.

While interesting and even provocative, the OP's main points reinforce the impossible dreams of belligerent aristocrats that destroyed common American lives. The carnage of the American Civil War should have been a warning to the world against modern warfare as a political solution. Instead we became mired in avoidable 20th Century wars by nearly identical oligarchs and aristocrats bent on throttling democracy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelby_Foote
 
  • Like
Likes Astronuc, BillTre and timmeister37
  • #21
timmeister37 said:
I don't understand why you think that "p is greater than zero" was my original point. p is a letter, not a number, so you are really comparing apples and oranges.
Are you so totally ignorant of math and logic that you do not realize that p stands for "the chance that the South could have won the civil war" or are you just being deliberately disingenuous? Either way, you are not helping your cause, which, by the way, seems to have become a CAUSE with you, not a logical discussion --- your points are all golden and everyone else's are not.
 
  • #22
phinds said:
Are you so totally ignorant of math and logic that you do not realize that p stands for "the chance that the South could have won the civil war" or are you just being deliberately disingenuous? Either way, you are not helping your cause, which, by the way, seems to have become a CAUSE with you, not a logical discussion --- your points are all golden and everyone else's are not.
I never knew that p means "the chance that the South had to win the war". My apologize.
 
  • #23
hutchphd said:
the Republicans might have nominated some real estate developer instead of Lincoln in 1864.

Fun fact. Lincoln actually engaged in land speculation in the 1830's.
 
  • Haha
Likes BillTre
  • #24
BillTre said:
There are probably just short of a million books on the civil war. Many probably not of great quality.
There is also a strong tradition in the South of Romanticizing the Civil War. This can be motivation for coming to particular conclusions.
Truer words have rarely been written.

I had been meaning to read Gore Vidal's "Lincoln" for years before realizing its an historical novel, not a biography <blush>. Many American civil war enthusiasts do not always distinguish between history and fiction.

As a related side note, I regard Abraham Lincoln's "Gettysburg Address" to be among the most beautiful evocative prose ever written; a superb speech from a great person. Sam Waterston's reading of the Address on PBS brought tears to my eyes.
 
  • Like
Likes Astronuc and BillTre
  • #25
timmeister37 said:
BillTre, just out of curiosity, do you think that the South ever had any chance to win the Civil War?
The more I have learned about the Civil War, the less I think the South could have won.

I grew up in and around the South for a good fraction of my life. There's a lot I like about Southern culture, but they are just wrong on this IMHO.
I think many people are delusional about things associated with "The War Between the States".
Some of these romantic ideas are generationally propagated by media and schools.
 
  • Like
Likes Klystron
  • #26
The Brits wavered regarding supporting the South -- they wanted long fiber cotton -- however, they didn't want to alienate the North, so apparently they just resolved to pay more if the South lost, and that's what wound up happening, but the decision could have gone the other way, and that could have turned the tide.
 
  • Like
Likes timmeister37
  • #27
Klystron said:
As a related side note, I regard Abraham Lincoln's "Gettysburg Address" to be among the most beautiful evocative prose ever written; a superb speech from a great person. Sam Waterston's reading of the Address on PBS brought tears to my eyes.
Lincoln was the poet president of the US.
His "Second Inaugural Address" is another great one.

He kept them short and did a lot of rewriting.
 
  • Like
Likes Astronuc, atyy, hutchphd and 1 other person
  • #28
BillTre said:
I grew up in and around the South for a good fraction of my life. There's a lot I like about Southern culture, but they are just wrong on this IMHO.
I think many people are delusional about things associated with "The War Between the States".
I too had a partially southern upbringing (eastern shore of Md) but didn't realize how southern it was until I spent some time later at U Va. in Charlottesville (c1980). I was discussing life in the south with a (fellow northerner) postdoc friend and we both agreed it was a pleasant place to be...but he put his finger on my intermittent quiet unease. He mentioned that he occasionally felt like he was "living behind enemy lines" and that was exactly the right description.
There was a certain lack of historical consensus...

.
 
  • Like
Likes BillTre and Klystron
  • #29
hutchphd said:
I too had a partially southern upbringing (eastern shore of Md)

Maryland is the South, especially the Eastern Shore and the Western Panhandle. A lot of people don't know that Maryland was a slave state (as was Delaware!) nor that the Mason-Dixon line is the PA-MD boundary. But the best evidence is that waitresses will call you "honey". :smile:
 
  • Like
Likes Astronuc, russ_watters, hutchphd and 2 others
  • #30
I'm not well versed in American history, so I decided to read into the Civil War more. Just looking at the numbers from 1860 to 1864, it seems the North enjoyed nearly every advantage by a large margin at the beginning of the war and this only grew as the war progressed. I understand that there is so much more to war then numbers, but really, when you hold all the advantages - industry, manpower, trade and economics - and your navy simply dwarfs your opponents, you have way more killing capacity than your enemy and are in a way better position for a prolonged conflict. That is hard to overcome no matter how good your soldiers are.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters and BillTre
  • #31
Mondayman said:
I understand that there is so much more to war then numbers, but really, when you hold all the advantages - industry, manpower, trade and economics - and your navy simply dwarfs your opponents, you have way more killing capacity than your enemy and are in a way better position for a prolonged conflict. That is hard to overcome no matter how good your soldiers are.
Vietnam managed to pull it off. (Yes I know, counterinsurgency warfare is very different from conventional warfare.)
 
  • #32
We stopped the Germans in '45
and crushed the Viet Cong
Almost
 
  • #33
Vietnam was a different beast and not comparable to the civil war, at least in terms of America's involvement. They were fighting an ocean away in terrain not natural to the US and doing it with their hand tied behind their back. North Vietnam also had the assistance of the USSR, for whom they relied on for SAMs, radar, artillery, aircraft, small arms, medical supplies, etc. Plus there were thousands of Soviet advisors who served during the war, many of them air defense officers. Despite this, Vietnam has said that the bombing campaign had the North weeks or even days from making peace talks before the Tet Offensive occurred and American support completely faltered.
 
  • Informative
Likes Klystron
  • #34
Axis surrendered 1944. Japanese Empire 1945. No?

According to a book by Air Marshal Ky, the Viet Cong were defeated by 1974 but the military gains were frittered away allowing the NVA time to rebuild, recover and occupy South Vietnam. The restricted fractured war against the North prevented victory against the NVA always allowing re-armament, rarely attacking power centers.
 
  • #35
Klystron said:
Axis surrendered 1944
Today is VE day. In the West we celebrate the 8th as the end of the war in Europe, in Eastern countries they recognize the 9th as Victory Day.
 
  • #36
John Nagl’s book, Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife, has a good comparative analysis of the US loss in Vietnam vs Britain’s victory in Malaya. The general lesson is that counterinsurgency is best approached as a police action (this is echoed by several other prominent military theorists), which means that Westmoreland’s approach in Vietnam (much more Clausewitzian in nature) was fundamentally the incorrect strategy.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes Klystron and Mondayman
  • #37
To return to the original question, there are a few salient points that ought to be made. First, the war objectives of the two sides were entirely different. The Confederacy, at least in the early part of the war, only really wanted to secede from the Union. Victory for the South would have been an early armistice. That was entirely possible. No one knew what sort of president Lincoln would turn out to be and he could have failed to unite the North in pursuing a long-term conflict.

The Union objective on the other hand was - by force if necessary - to restore the Confederate states to the Union. This ultimately required the war to be won and the South to be occupied and reconstructed. There was no guarantee that Lincoln would succeed in this - or retain the presidency in 1864.

Perhaps an outright Confederate victory was a near impossibility, but ultimately they were defeated by Lincoln's conviction to fight for as long as it took to restore the Union; and his ability to keep the Union united in pursuit of this objective.
 
  • Like
Likes Klystron and BillTre
  • #38
timmeister37 said:
I never knew that p means "the chance that the South had to win the war". My apologize.
Now that you recognize that "P" stands for "probability" -- in this case, the probability of the south winning the war, perhaps you could re-visit the point and put some thought into it, in order to understand what's wrong with how you framed the question.

The way you phrased the question, you are attacking the position that the South had zero chance (probability) of winning the war. It's trivial to show as a matter of math/logic (as V50 did) that it couldn't be exactly zero. So, could the South have won the war? Of course they could have. Was it likely (say, P>75%)? Or realistically possible (say, P>25%)? Or a toss-up (P=50%)? That's a harder, but more useful criteria/framing.
 
  • Like
Likes Klystron, Vanadium 50, timmeister37 and 2 others
  • #39
TeethWhitener said:
Vietnam managed to pull it off. (Yes I know, counterinsurgency warfare is very different from conventional warfare.)
Let's at least try to keep it tied to the Civil War...

I think it is noteworthy that at least in my view the Revolutionary War contained more modern insurgent/guerrilla warfare tactics than the Civil War did. I actually can't think of any war before Vietnam where that was the preferred approach of one side, though, so I don't think it is realistic to speculate that it could have been done in the Civil War.
 
  • #40
russ_watters said:
Let's at least try to keep it tied to the Civil War...

I think it is noteworthy that at least in my view the Revolutionary War contained more modern insurgent/guerrilla warfare tactics than the Civil War did. I actually can't think of any war before Vietnam where that was the preferred approach of one side, though, so I don't think it is realistic to speculate that it could have been done in the Civil War.
The Peninsular war (1807 or so) is where the word guerrilla originated. Wellington leaned on it extensively to great effect when he was trying to kick the French out of Iberia.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #41
I grew up in Virginia in the 1960s (a far different place than it is today). John Mosby was kind of a local civil war hero. He took a kind of a guerrilla approach.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_S._Mosby

The point remains, however, that the confederacy did not wage the war in that way.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters and Klystron
  • #42
gmax137 said:
The point remains, however, that the confederacy did not wage the war in that way.

That is true. It's also true that such a strategy would be unlikely to achieve Southern goals, at least long-term.

I think the best argument that the South was doomed from the start is to consider what a lasting peace would need to look like. If small border skirmishes (between VA-WV and KS-MO) plus a trade embargo (at least de facto) continued indefinitely, eventually the Confederacy would fail as a country.

The South hoped Britain would come to their aid, or at least recognize them. This didn't happen, and probably wouldn't. Britain was repulsed by slavery, and needed Northern grain more than Southern cotton. The South's only hope was to become a satellite of some other European power. Problem is, Europe was distracted, and the War of The Triple Alliance showed the high cost of even winning a proxy war. Furthermore, no nation could project sea power like Britain.

The big problem for the South wasn't winning the war. It was that they had no likely plan for peace.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes PeterDonis, Astronuc, russ_watters and 2 others
  • #43
gmax137 said:
I grew up in Virginia in the 1960s (a far different place than it is today). John Mosby was kind of a local civil war hero. He took a kind of a guerrilla approach.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_S._Mosby

The point remains, however, that the confederacy did not wage the war in that way.
Other Confederate battle commanders in addition to Mosby such as Nathan Forrest, Cullen Baker, William Anderson and William Quantrill advocated highly mobile cavalry tactics; lightning fast raids often against weakly defended civilian and military targets where speed, surprise and mobile firepower defeated numerically superior but stationary forces.

Though successful tactics, these raids tended to strengthen Union resolve to defeat the Confederacy while generating bad press in the nation's newspapers that far outweighed tactical advantage. As stated above, top military commanders such as Robert E. Lee failed to embrace or countenance guerilla methods.

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

Without the veneer of war, these tactics were considered despicable criminal banditry. For example Quantrill's raiders who continued these tactics after Appomattox such as the James brothers and their cousins the Youngers were hunted as vicious criminals.
 
Last edited:
  • #44
Vanadium 50 said:
The big problem for the South wasn't winning the war. It was that they had no likely plan for peace.

Indeed. I suppose they thought that once they whipped the USA 1861 (and thus achieved independence) that everything would be hunky-dory between the USA and CSA. Or, more likely, no one gave much thought to this topic in the first place.

timmeister37 said:
The South lost the Civil War in the West. There was a substantial peace movement in the North at certain times in the war even with all these huge CSA mistakes. Imagine how strong the peace movement would have been with northern casualties doubled for far less strategic gains. Imagine how strong the peace movement would have been in the North if the South managed to keep Fort Henry, Fort Donelson, and Vicksburg. I think that the North would not have been willing to take that other hand out from behind their back if they took much heavier casualties for little or no strategic gains.

I can counter all of this with one sentence: "Imagine how short the war would have been if McClellan hadn't consistently overestimated the number of Confederate soldiers in Johnston's and Lee's armies." The Peninsula campaign to capture Richmond probably would have succeeded, and if Antietam still happened that uncommitted third of the Union army would probably have crushed Lee towards the end of the day or the next.

My point is that there are many, many things you can look back on and say, "If only they had done THIS instead". Of course they wouldn't would've done much better if you look back with the benefit of hindsight and correct all their 'mistakes'!

In my opinion the fact that the Confederacy held on for 4 years is absolutely astonishing and owes most of that to two things:
1.) The stunning victories in the East by Lee that kept Richmond from being taken and prevented the destruction of one of the CSA's principle armies.
2.) The absurd difficulty of having to march and sustain armies numbering upwards of 100,000 men through hostile territory that's the size of western Europe.

The logistical problems of this second part were immense, and I don't think it's a stretch to say that the invention of the railroad won the war in terms of logistics. None of the Union armies would have ever been able to move as quickly as they did, with as many men as they had, over so large distances as they marched without a railroad forming the backbone of their supply line.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Astronuc, russ_watters, Klystron and 2 others
  • #45
Along with railroads, telegraphs, heliographs, improved optical devices and other technology, we should examine mass production and assembly lines becoming common in 1860's Northern factories and a few Southern textile mills. Union factories simply overwhelmed the Confederacy's ability to supply modern weapons and munitions.

Most, if not all, of the Confederate raiders mentioned in earlier posts relied on captured or purchased weapons manufactured by Colt, Smith&Wesson, Henry and other Union suppliers. Even without a naval blockade the Confederacy was out gunned.

The late Chris Kyle wrote a short book on the history of military firearms "American Gun" from a sniper's veiwpoint though many thousands books describe Civil War equipment.

[Edit 20200512: the expression Confederacy out gunned consists of metaphorical shorthand for war time logistics complexity in the interest of brevity, not particular battles being decided by numerical imbalance in hand-held weapons.]
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Drakkith
  • #46
Klystron said:
Union factories simply overwhelmed the Confederacy's ability to supply modern weapons and munitions.

Klystron said:
Most, if not all, of the Confederate raiders mentioned in earlier posts relied on captured or purchased weapons manufactured by Colt, Smith&Wesson, Henry and other Union suppliers. Even without a naval blockade the Confederacy was out gunned.

What's interesting is that at no point did the Confederacy lose a major battle due to lack of arms or ammunition. Most of the disparity was, as far as I know, really in the sense of lack of powder and ammunition for gunnery training, lack of artillery for all but the most essential cities/forts, and heavy rationing of existing stocks of ammunition and powder even for the frontline armies. Basically, the CSA just barely had enough to equip their armies with very little left over for the non-essential (but often important) tasks.

Contrast this with the Union, where men supposedly had a quota for the number of rounds they were required to fire per day during sieges, and had so much ammunition, powder, and other supplies stockpiled that even the loss of entire supply depots to enemy action had virtually no effect beyond the short-term.

As for railroads, I think the best example is Lee's Army of Northern Virginia nearly having itself starved into destruction because of the limited capacity of the ill-kept railroad system leading to Richmond. There was an immense amount of food sitting out in the southern states that simply could not be gathered and transported because of the relatively poor rail network.

That's my understanding at least.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes russ_watters and Klystron
  • #47
The whole argument of the OP seems to lie somewhere between "if Germany got the bomb first we'd all be speaking German" and "if the south's war were managed by people other than those who managed the war their actions would have been potentially better." In other words, no substantive argument at all.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters, Klystron and BillTre
  • #48
BillTre said:
I think many people are delusional about things associated with "The War Between the States".

You mean "The War of Yankee Aggression"? :wink:

atehundel said:
"if the south's war were managed by people other than those who managed the war their actions would have been potentially better." In other words, no substantive argument at all.

To be fair, I don't think his position is at all clearly stated. He also has points like "the failure to adopt and implement a plan to keep New Orleans from being captured" which is structurally the same as "the failure to adopt and implement a plan to win the war". Yes, it's true but not very helpful.

I think his very first point is telling. "the decision to fire on Fort Sumter instead of using that time productively diplomatically, economically, and militarily. " In short - the best outcome would have been not to start.

Time was not on the side of the South. It would have been better for them to have seceeded in 1850. Or 1820. Possibly even 1812, although that may not have worked out all that well.

PeroK said:
The Confederacy, at least in the early part of the war, only really wanted to secede from the Union.

I don't think they had thought that through. One of their complaints was the, um, lack of enthusiasm Northern states showed in enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act. How well would that have worked if the North were a whole separate country?
 
  • Like
Likes BillTre
  • #49
Vanadium 50 said:
One of their complaints was the, um, lack of enthusiasm Northern states showed in enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act. How well would that have worked if the North were a whole separate country?
Maybe they would have built a wall along the Potomac and Ohio Rivers. :rolleyes:
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Likes Astronuc, Vanadium 50, Klystron and 3 others
  • #50
Theres a series of alternate history books out there called Southern Victory or Timeline-191 by Harry Turtledove. In it the Special Order 191 detailing Lee's invasion of Maryland is never recovered by Union soldiers, and the C.S. are able to surprise the Union forces and destroy them at the Battle of Camp Hill in 1862. This leads to a Confederate Victory. The series goes well into the 1940's. Could be an interesting series
 

Similar threads

Replies
13
Views
11K
Replies
10
Views
12K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
65
Views
10K
Back
Top