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 ...
None of those would have given the South a real chance at victory. The only real chance that the South had was that the North would lose political will and give up the fight. The foreign interventions were unrealistic. France and Britain had no great national interest in supporting the Confederacy. By the 1860’s, slavery was a great moral issue and neither would have wanted to be seen overtly supporting a rebellion whose purpose was the preservation of slavery. Any of the military scenarios you propose would not have overcome the basic advantages the North had. The Civil War was an industrialized war, and the North had almost all of the industrial capability in the US at the time. Further, the North had a tremendous advantage in population.
Just a few further criticisms of your ideas: your number 2 is of course historically inaccurate. In 1863, Andrew Johnson was nothing more than a Senator from Tennessee. Hannibal Hamlin was Lincoln’s VP during his first term. If you have ANY clue what Hamlin would have done upon assuming office, you certainly have a greater knowledge of history than I do. I would suspect, however, that Hamlin likely would have pursued the war in much the same way as Lincoln. Johnson was added to the ticket in 1864 to try to garner support from Southern sympathizers in the North. Johnson was, in fact, a Democrat before becoming Lincoln’s VP. Presumably Hamlin shared more of Lincoln’s basic political philosophy than Johnson did. Further, Congress was much more powerful during the war than it is now. Congress probably would not have allowed Hamlin to alter the war effort too much.
Regarding 5, it’s hard to see how that would have had much effect. How effective a fighting force would slaves have been? Are you really going to fight and sacrifice your life for those who are keeping you in bondage? The slaves were uneducated and illiterate, but they were not stupid. They knew which side of the war matched their interests best, and it obviously was not the Confederacy. It is true that there were a few slaves who supported the Confederacy, but the large majority were obviously not inclined to fight to keep themselves in bondage. Besides, as a desperation measure, the South did in fact try this, with very little effect on the outcome.
Hmmm.. a true Belle of the South do you kiss your mother with that mouth?
My post about monsters was in response to someone suggestion that the south could have won by defeating a large Union Army after which they would chase down all retreating, surrendering and wounded soldiers.
Maybe you don’t understand the difference in fact I sincerely doubt that you do. War ain’t no cotillion. Lots of things happen and people do things in the heat, anger and/or poor judgement. Why purposely add to those things?
You guys still aren’t getting it. No number of defeats in battles would have given the South the ability to overcome the North. The North had too much superiority in industrial capability and population to lose the war, short of losing the political will to continue to fight.
Just to take one of your points as an example, consider #6. Grant as an individual was NOT vital to the Union war effort. Grant was not some military genius who defeated the South via superior strategic thinking or by superior tactical maneuvers. Before Grant, Union generals tried to outmaneuver Lee’s army and invariably were defeated. Grant was simply the first Union general to recognize where the Union’s true superiority lay, namely in the Union’s superior ability to continue to maintain the war effort in the face of high casualty rates. He knew that if both armies suffered huge casualty rates, the Union army could replace the losses whereas the Confederate army could not. He continued to inflict casualties on the Southern army until the Southern lines thinned and broke. He realized that it was not necessary to defeat Lee by outmaneuvering his army.
It was akin to a boxing match where one fighter is a smaller, quicker guy and the other is a big bruiser who wants to stand toe to toe and trade punches. Grant finally realized that he couldn’t outbox Lee; he had to just stand toe to toe and beat the crap out of him.
If Grant hadn’t done this, it’s quite likely another general would have been found who would have. That’s especially true considering that Lincoln was in full agreement with this strategy. This was also assisted by the fact that in the Western Theater, the Confederates lacked a leader with the strategic ability of Lee. By the time Grant was doing his thing in the East, the Western theater was pretty much decided and Sherman was pushing his way north through the Carolinas to link up with Grant. Even without Grant at the helm, Lee would have been trapped between the two armies and would have been able to do nothing to prevent defeat.
Agreed Stalingrad became an obsession of Hitler and an insane one at that. One that Stalin took advantage.
It always amazes me that people think that the South would have won the war had they won at Gettysburg. By that time, the Northern army was clearly superior in manpower and supply to the Southern army. In fact, supplying his army off the Northerners in PA was one of the motivations behind Lee’s invasion of the North that led to Gettysburg. In the actual event, the Southern armies fought on for nearly two years after Gettysburg. Why would anyone think that an army in better shape than the Confederate army would not have been able to fight on after a loss at Gettysburg?
Actually the way Hitler so thoroughly bungled Stalingrad, and callously allowed the 6th Army to freeze and starve to death in the pocket, the survivors marched off to Siberia where most of them died in POW camps, this was the main catalyst among many military officers which culminated in the July 20th Bomb Plot which nearly killed Hitler. Of course there were plots against Hitler from the beginning, but after Stalingrad, the movement, especially among the military, really gained serious strength.
They don’t call it the “Lost Cause” for nothing.
I'm always puzzled by the ones who think that having Jackosn there would have magically produced a Confederate win by default. Like the guy was all powerful or something.
Southern states were upset that Northerners were refusing to enforce the Federal Fugitive Slave Act.
Southerners wanted that Federal law to override Northern states' rights.
There was one day when the South could have lost. If McClellan had put his whole army in at Antietam, or attacked Lee in force on the second day, it could have all been over. But then, given that this is McClellan we're talking about here, it's not even a possible counterfactual.
I honestly believe that the South lost on April 12, 1861 when they fired on Sumter. It just took four years for them to realize that. I just can’t come up with a scenarion where they don’t win. The closest they could have come was if they had won at Antietam and the British did try to intervene and negotiate a settlement leading to Southern independence, but even then I think Lincoln could have survived foreign pressure and continue the war.
Correction. Where the South doesn’t lose.
The treason starts that dark night when drunken inbreds from the Citadel fired artillery at unsuspecting American soldiers assigned to Ft. Sumter, with a treachery equal to the attack on Pearl Harbor and the terrorism of 9/11.
The treason continued every time a rebel pig looked down the barrel of a gun at a soldier donning the uniform of the American military, under the Stars and Stripes.
My history is the history of the United States of America, biased with malice towards ALL of those who call it enemy. Let the traitors rot in hell!
YES! but not after 1862...
1. Don’t hand the North Casus Belli, still important to European imperialists, on day 1 by firing the first shot at Fort Sumter.
2. Win at Fort Donelson, Feb 11-16, saving over 12,000 captured Confederates. Plus get Grant fired.
3. Actually defend New Orleans; lost April 24-25. That, not Vicksburg, sealed the loss of the Mississippi and splitting the South in two.
Excellent point.
The problem with that is that the more the German army moved its strength south into the Caucasus, the more they stretched their lines and left themselves open to a counterstroke in the gap between Army Group Center and Army Group South.
There are some among the Lost Causers here who will tell you the slavery was perfectly moral and was sanctioned by the Bible.
The same argument could be made for incest which is mentioned in the Bible. Slavery simply could not have lasted.
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.