Posted on 03/17/2015 8:14:26 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com ...
I didn't think Bradley came off THAT badly, but he was definitely playing the game, too. On the other hand, I knew Marc Clark was bad, but I didn't realize how bad.
Neither George Washington or Thomas Jefferson went to war to protect the Peculiar Institution.
Fine, but how was the Confederacy supposed to do that? How should the confederacy have destroyed meat-packing plants in Chicago that were supplying food to the troops? How could the Confederates destroy munitions factories in the NYC area that were producing ammunition? How could they have destroyed the steel factories in Pittsburgh? How could they have destroyed the textile mills in Boston that supplied uniforms? There was no such thing as heavy bombers in the Civil War, you know.
Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia continued on as a formidable fighting force after being defeated at Gettysburg. Why would not have Meade’s Army of the Potomac done the same? Keep in mind that the AOP had prepared defensive lines in MD as a fallback position in case things went poorly at Gettysburg. Besides the DC fortifications, Lee likely would have had to fight the AOP again to reach DC.
“Dysentery can fill graveyards, but that doesn’t mean it can govern.No way the south would have operated independently. Even without abolitionists in the US, slavery was ending around the globe. The basis for the southern economy was ending and adaptation was nowhere to be found.”
I also believe the southern states would have fractured and turned their guns on each other.
The western states in the CSA wouldn’t have taken orders from Richmond. Hell probably Alabama and Georgia wouldn’t have either.
It would have wound up with 7 or 8 failed independent states.
I’m led to wonder what if the Confederacy had pursued an all-out guerilla war instead of a conventional one. To emerge victorious, the South merely needed to continue to exist. It was the North that needed to conquer its enemy. A committed, armed Southern population fighting a guerilla campaign might not have been as easy to defeat as a Confederate army fighting full-scale battles (not to imply that four years and a half million+ casualties was “easy”, but you get my meaning.)
I read a book that I thought was interesting (My apologies; I cannot remember the author, I believe the title was “How Hitler Could Have Won WWII). The premise of that book was that Hitler should have avoided war with both the Soviets and the US, and that he should have heavily fortified Afrika Korps to the point where it would have soundly defeated the British forces and conquered Egypt. From there, German forces could well have invaded British holdings in the Middle East and threatened India. Coordination with the Japanese forces in Indochina would have been possible here. Britain could not have easily defended India from a two-sided attack, and Britain would have almost been forced to capitulate to protect its colonial empire. The Soviets could have done nothing since they would have been faced with a direct invasion of the Caucus oil fields, which were a primary target of the German army in the actual invasion. Besides, it was the direct invasion by Germany that brought Stalin into the war in the first place. Absent this direct invasion, it’s unlikely that the Soviets would have done much.
Like any “what if” scenario, we’ll never know if it’s true, but it’s certainly an interesting idea.
Regarding two republics vying for additional territories in the west, you are probably correct.
The issue isn’t so much whether Lee could have taken DC or not. The issue is whether by threatening DC Lee could have forced the north into peace negotiations. A victory by the south at Gettysburg would have gone a long way towards ending the war.
Some things make you wonder though.
1) You invade Russia, you bring winter clothing. Duh! It’s Russia!
2) Your troops are surrounded in the Stalingrad pocket, all of your generals have advised a breakout. Not a very tough decision IMHO.
3) Why Russia’s two major cities, Leningrad and Moscow were not taken when they were vulnerable, also defies reason and logic.
4) Finally, when you have the native population welcoming you with open arms, seems to me you should treat them humanely instead of turning them into partisans.
Not rocket science.
Your #3 was really a big one. Hitler probably could have recruited large allied armies from Ukraine, Belarus, and the Baltic States if he had just allowed himself to treat their populations as something other than subhumans. The failure of Hitler’s invasion was no sure thing; a large allied army fighting against the Soviets instead of harassing the Germans and forcing many German soldiers into garrison duty behind the front lines might well have turned the tide.
I wouild also add failing to bypass Stalingrad to your list. Taking the city itself, even without the subsequent siege and loss of the 6th army, actually gained no strategic value for the Germans. The strategic goal was to interdict river traffic on the Volga, a goal that could be accomplished without actual control of Stalingrad. Hitler insisted on taking the city primarily for propaganda purposes based on the fact that it was named for Stalin. Bypassing the city, leaving a garrison on the river to control traffic and pushing toward the Caucus oil fields would have been a far better use of Hitler’s troops.
Can’t disagree with any of that. I would just add, why try to conquer Stalingrad in the first place? Besides the propaganda value of conquering “Stalin City”, what was the strategic gain? Why not bypass the city itself and continue to drive toward the Caucus with its valuable oil fields? Lack of oil was a big problem for Germany late in the war. Certainly oil from the Caucus fields would have been very useful.
Guerilla warfare tends to be hard on your civilian population, witness the border war in eastern Kansas/western Missouri, so it's hard to see how if would have remained committed for long. And it's hard to say that you exist as a country without a government, without a capitol, and without an army.
I can see the strategic value of Stalingrad as it was the biggest port and industrial city on the Volga.
Stalin seemed every bit as determined to defend the city as Hitler was determined to take the city and that’s what lead to the biggest and bloodiest battle in recorded human history.
The most perplexing aspect of the battle was Hitler’s stubborn refusal to authorize a breakout from the pocket while the 6th Army was still viable. ALL of his generals advised a breakout. Only RM Goering, perhaps his judgment impaired by his addiction to morphine, suggested the 6th Army could be supplied by an airlift-—pure insanity given the atrocious weather conditions. And Hitler himself by now given a daily injection of a cocktail of drugs supplied by his quack physician. Hitler’s lack of military logic probably is the reason he never rose higher than corporal when he served in the army.
The confederate guerrillas in Kansas and Missouri under Quantrill, Anderson and Clement were nothing if not well-armed and committed. In the end, though, they were hunted down and killed, even years after the war (when they turned into James Gang).
For instance, Terry L. Jones is a professor of history, and he was talking about American history and its "democracy", not Iranian history and its "republic".
I would submit that many feel that the idea of our Republic does equal freedom and liberty. Which is why I capitalized Republic in my original post, to differentiate from the wanna-bes.
Sorry about the effluviant in your Wheaties this morning.
If the Davis regime had its way, Washington DC would be deep within Confederate territory. There would be Confederate forces 50 miles outside Philadelphia, and just a little over 100 miles from Lake Erie, poised to cut the country in half. We'd have a very long fortified border, perhaps stretching to the Pacific, and plenty of tension. How existential do you want to get?
You clearly didn’t read the whole thread ma’am, but that’s ok and I forgive you.
Wasn’t it the South who opened fire on Ft. Sumter?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.