Could the South Have Won the War?

NY Times Disunion ^ | March 16, 2015 | Terry L. Jones

[iowamark]

By March 1865, it was obvious to all but the most die-hard Confederates that the South was going to lose the war. Whether that loss was inevitable is an unanswerable question, but considering various “what if” scenarios has long been a popular exercise among historians, novelists and Civil War buffs...

Perhaps the most common scenario centers on the actions of Gen. Robert E. Lee...

What many fail to recognize is that Northerners were just as committed to winning as the Southerners. Some saw it as a war to free the slaves, while others fought to ensure that their republican form of government survived. Northerners believed that America was the world’s last great hope for democracy, and if the South destroyed the Union by force, that light of liberty might be extinguished forever. Lincoln once said the North must prove “that popular government is not an absurdity. We must settle this question now, whether in a free government the minority have the right to break up the government whenever they choose. If we fail it will go far to prove the incapability of the people to govern themselves.”

The South may have been fighting to preserve a way of life and to protect its perceived constitutional rights, but so was the North. If the Southern people kept fighting even after the devastating defeats at Gettysburg, Vicksburg and Chattanooga, why should we not believe the North would have kept on fighting even if the Confederates had won Gettysburg, Vicksburg and Chattanooga? The fact is that both sides were equally brave and equally dedicated to their cause. Commitment and morale being the same, the stronger side prevailed.

[iowamark]

Terry L. Jones is a professor of history at the University of Louisiana, Monroe and the author of several books on the Civil War.

[mrmeyer]

Northerners believed that America was the world’s last great hope for democracy

Democracy?

[cripplecreek]

Should have listened to Sam Houston.

Let me tell you what is coming. After the sacrifice of countless millions of treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives, you may win Southern independence if God be not against you, but I doubt it. I tell you that, while I believe with you in the doctrine of states rights, the North is determined to preserve this Union. They are not a fiery, impulsive people as you are, for they live in colder climates. But when they begin to move in a given direction, they move with the steady momentum and perseverance of a mighty avalanche; and what I fear is, they will overwhelm the South.

[Cry if I Wanna]

“The War of Northern Aggression” as my grandpa used to say..

[kiryandil]

Democracy?

You have to remember that the good "professor" is an "educator" lackey in the pay of The Managerial State, which doesn't like words like "Republic", and that which it implies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managerial_state

[Olog-hai]

It’s the Slimes. They’ve been calling the USA a “democracy” going way back to the beginning of the last century.

[C19fan]

Some Civil War historian claimed the Union was fighting with one hand behind its back. The South was at maximum effort while the North had plenty of capacity, men and material it could use if needed.

[central_va]

The South was not trying to conquer the North. It was in a war to separate from the North. The USA would have gone on without the South and been just hunkydory. There was no existential threat to the North.

[kosciusko51]

Since most of the fighting happened in the South, the North’s war machine was never imperiled.

I wonder if the South had won at Gettysburg, and had continued success on Northern soil, would the Union lost its will to fight.

[Trapped Behind Enemy Lines]

No. The North was vastly more populous,industrial, and wealthy. It was an uneven match. The South had better generals though. In WWII the Germans also had better generals. But fortunately for the Allies, Hitler often ignored them. The Germans, like the South in the War Between the States, could never hope to keep up with Allied industrial production.

[Bidimus1]

NO.

The Union could have stopped fighting but in no military sense could the Confederacy win the war.

The anaconda strategy worked.

[driftless2]

Shelby Foote said that in Ken Burns’s documentary.

[dangus]

A key point many may overlook is that the South could not have achieved their goals with a “two-state” solution: the confederacy would have been a failed state. Keep in mind, that the war was not triggered by an attempt to ban slavery in the deep south, but to limit its growth to the West. Mere secession would have left the South not only with a large, enslaved population inclined to insurrection, but also with a white population that was largely doomed to mere agriculture, and yet could not compete with slave plantations. “Victory” without conquest of the North would thus result in a tiny, super-rich elite governing over a nation plagued by grinding poverty and unrest.

So the question is not could the South have repelled the North, but could they have conquered it; could they have won without home-team advantage? Could they have invaded cities like Boston and New York?

[areukiddingme1]

IMO Maj. Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman would have had to have been assassinated in December of 1863 or January 1864...Then the south would have had a shot.

[baltimorepoet]

Northerners believed that America was the world’s last great hope for democracy, and if the South destroyed the Union by force, that light of liberty might be extinguished forever. Lincoln once said the North must prove “that popular government is not an absurdity. We must settle this question now, whether in a free government the minority have the right to break up the government whenever they choose. If we fail it will go far to prove the incapability of the people to govern themselves.”

The only question that was settled, was that if your murder enough people who disagree with you, you can impose your will on the survivors, and that this principle applies to Republican forms of government, just as it does to Monarchies and Dictatorships.

What "consent to govern" and "social contract" really means is that "I only govern with your granting consent for me to govern you, and if you don't consent I will murder you."

The "social contract" is not a real contract because it is imposed under duress.

[rfreedom4u]

The South was not fighting a war of conquest while the North was. The Republican government of the North would have continued but in smaller form without the South. It would have also continued in the South.

[C19fan]

Lee and his great lieutenants were operating in the East. The Confederate generals out West were horrible except for the few exceptions like Claiborne.

[C19fan]

Thanks! I remember now.

[central_va]

the confederacy would have been a failed state.

Your high opinion of Southerners is duly noted as bigoted bull crap. For a "failed state" they sure did put down a lot of Yankees. Grave yards down here full of them.

[C19fan]

“Lincoln once said the North must prove “that popular government is not an absurdity....”

Yes the whole world was watching. The British gentry Tory elite and a lot of Whigs too were hoping the Union would fail to prove what a folly a representative gov’t on a continental scale was.