Great read - some contemporary South Africaans use "Apple computers" to go back to 1861 and equip Rebels with AKs.
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 ...
For the north it was very much like another war in the 1960’s. And people were getting VERY tired of the cost.
If not for Gettysburg, it is quite possible the South would have won. As much as I support their states rights stance, this would not have been a good thing.
Another component was the North’s unlimited supply of free (non slave) military-age manpower : Ireland and Germany
Like with most major wars the losing side usually has an opportunity to outright win a war or at least set up the conditions for a favorable peace. In the case of the Civil War, if Lee had made just a couple different decisions at Gettysburg, the South would have won her independence. At least for awhile.
Even if the 1860’s Civil War had been won by the South, it would have only been one battle in a longer war. The slavery issue would have still existed in the South, with the North likely actively encouraging slaves to flee north. Between the runaway slave issue and claims to western territory, it’s likely there would have been a second war. Of course there’s no telling which side would have won.
“By March 1865, it was obvious to all but the most die-hard Confederates that the South was going to lose the war.”
From what I can tell, that date should be March 2015.
Great point.
Off-topic, that seems to be the attitude that comes out of Washington these days.
The Unions generals were much better than the Confederates out West; Grant, Sherman, Rosecrans until he lost his nerve at Chickamunga, Thomas, and Sheridan.
Great read - some contemporary South Africaans use "Apple computers" to go back to 1861 and equip Rebels with AKs.
I think that is correct in terms of men, material, and logistics. The south and Lee never had a realistic chance of a conclusive military victory to back up the right of succession. It still would have been interesting to see what may have happened in terms of a settlement if Lee had prevailed at Gettysburg and had been able to flank Philly, Baltimore and/or Washington D.C. .
Good point. While the eastern theater is often described as decisive, it was really in the Western theater that the Confederacy lost the war. The fall of Vicksburg cut the Confederacy in half. The later defeats allowed Sherman to lead his troops on the “March to the Sea” and led directly to the result at Appomattox. Lee likely surrendered because he realized that even if he managed to move his army away from Appomatox, he would still be trapped between Grant’s army pursuing from the north and Sherman’s army coming up from the South through the Carolinas. His situation was hopeless precisely because of the Union success in the Western Theater.
Although the South was falling way behind the North in technology. The Union was equipping units with repeating rifles like the Henry or breech loading single shot weapons. The South did not have the ability to produce the bullets even if they were able to get captured weapons.
Yes, Anaconda worked.
But only because of the continued, and expanded, political will in the North to win.
Recall, for instance, that during the Battle of Gettysburg there were major draft riots in New York. And Lincoln had the Copperheads to contend with.
Had Lee won at Gettysburg, or avoided it entirely and successfully moved on Harrisburg and/or defeated the Army of the Potomac in detail, the pressure on Lincoln to negotiate a settlement would have been enormous. Had the 1864 election taken place with either a stalemate or the Union armies attrited (as opposed to maneuvering ever-forward as the twin victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg enabled), Lincoln probably would have lost to Little Mac, who would have negotiated a settlement.
Interesting.
Lee knew that the South couldn’t win straight up with the North from the very beginning. It was out manned and outgunned. He saw that the only way to possible to win was to prolonged the war and make it into a war of attrition, whereas the politicians fearing the death toll was too much would get involved and end it with a truce or settlement
Before the civil war: the United States “are”.
After the civil war: the United States “is”.
The original US Constitutional republic died the day the civil war ended, and a bureaucratic federal oligarchy took its place.
A free man working his own farm is more productive than a slave doing only as much work as he needs to in order to escape punishment. As the US filled up with new immigrants, free men settling there would have bid up the price of decent farmland, to the point where the plantation owners would see more profit in selling the land than in continuing to farm it with slaves.
Over time, they would also have freed the least-productive and most-troublesome slaves, and shipped them North. Revenge would have consisted of depositing freed slaves in the neighborhoods of abolitionists.
I’m not sure that a Confederate victory at Gettysburg would have meant Southern independence. Meade’s army might have suffered a defeat, but it would still have been largely intact. Far from losing the support of the Northern population, I think that a successful invasion of the North might well have galvanized support. Keep in mind that those in the North who opposed the war did so because they felt that it was not moral to fight against fellow countrymen who were not truly a threat. New York City was a hotbed of such opposition. Do you really think if Lee had threatened to attack NYC that opposition to the war would have continued?
The war was won by the North for the very simple reason that the Civil War was really the first industrial war, and the North far outpaced the South in terms of industrial capability. Think of how the war actually was won. It was not won on the basis of any improved Union strategies or tactics. It was only won when the Union finally put a general in charge who ignored the heavy casualties and stopped targeting Southern cities and territory and focused on the real task, destroying Lee’s army. That was only doable because of the immense advantage the North had in terms of manpower and industrial capability. I truly don’t believe that there was any way the Confederacy could have defeated the Union militarily given the limitations that the Confederacy had.
Sam Houston said that? They should have listened to him.
I would think it just the opposite. Lee needed to win a “Napoleonic”-type quick victory over the Union army. A war of attrition played right into Northern hands given the North’s extreme advantages in terms of manpower and industrial capability. Lee was pretty dumb if he thought a war of attrition was favorable to him.
"Gettysburg" by Newt Gingrich and W. Forstchen dealt with that "what if", and it only would have delayed the inevitable - for the same reasons Germany and Japan could not have won - finite industrial base.
Great post!
Boy, he nailed it didn’t he?!
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.