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 ...
As bad as the war was, Reconstruction was damaging as well, on par with the reparations required from Germany after WWI.
Had Lincoln survived, it would have been interesting to see how his “malice towards none” would have worked out. But the vindictive men that came after Lincoln wanted their pound of flesh, and to humiliate and punish the South.
As I said the Union could have stopped but the Confederacy from a purely military view had NO path to victory.
The Confederacy had to hope the same strategy that worked for Washington in the reveloption would work for them, it did not in large part because the distance issue (no atlantic ocean to contend with) and no allies that were willing to aid in the fight (the French, esp the French Navy)
Be careful what you wish for, because many times behaving as a ‘monster’ only creates a bigger ‘monster’ and if the South didn’t suffer enough as it was after losing just imagine what would have happened if they lost after using such tactics.
Interesting because DC was one of the most fortified places on earth. Fortifications and earthworks protected the city.
True about international support. People unfamiliar with the real history of the Civil War often think the tide was turned for good at Gettysburg. In fact the fate of the South was sealed the previous year at Antietam (Sharpsburg), after which defeat France decided against recognition of the Confederacy and the logistical support that would have implied.
They would have won if they listened to Joe Johnston. Of all the southern generals, Joe was the one that US Grant feared the most. And Grant managed 4 or 5 armies. Not bad for a supposed “drunk” which is a laugh.
The biggest problem was Halleck and Lincoln. Halleck was an asshole, as was Stanton, and Lincoln was clueless.
On the other side, was the expert Davis. The self described expert in military tactics...SRC.
Sherman brought about modern warfare. Nasty little twerp, but the concept of total warfare was his doing. And it worked.
Funny how the world studied the military tactics of these men, and the fruits of these came to reality in WW1 and 2. Mostly WW2. WW1, the Brits and French were still stuck in old world military tactics.
The South was following the Constitution you smug bastard. There were no communists in the South. The US Constitution is silent on the subject of secession and before the civil war slavery, that peculiar institution, was Constitutional.
Agreed. Many people have lambasted the series of Northern commanders who lost battle after battle until Grant took over. However, I would point out that the prior losses of battles were not significant losses in terms of replaceable manpower. This had the overall effect of “preserving” the North’s army until a point in time where significant loses could be inflicted on the south. Further, these later southern losses were not replaceable as were the North’s.
Perhaps unintentionally, but effectively, the North drew the South into a war of attrition. This is why I believe the ONLY way for the South to have won, would have been the utter destruction and decimation of the Norther Army early in the war.
Read Turtledove’s “Southern Victory” series starting with “How Few Remain”. It’s a great alternate history series, which continues on I other series to explore the results of a Confederate victory all through the Civil, Spanish American, and Great war, among others.
Slavery is communism. Your forefathers were communists and we stopped you in your commie tracks.
As I said. You’re welcome.
My opinion of Southerners has nothing to do with it. They weren’t doomed to fail because they were genetically inferior; they were doomed to fail because their socioeconomic system was based on unjust and therefore wildly dysfunctional.
5.56mm
Read the title as:
SHOULD the South Have Won the War?
I often think the answer would be yes.
Slavery would have died out eventually for economic as well as moral reasons.
Oh well. Just half a million dead people. Who cares Mr. Lincoln?
For those liking the what if..
What if Jubal Early had not been late...
The valley Campaign.
More accurately:
Before the Constitution: the united states “are”.
After the Constitution: the United States “is”.
-- R E Lee on Jubal Early
Just for the record, Hitler also made many brilliant command decisions. As you wrote, he ignored his generals often, and towards the end that had horrible consequences.
Now, if you want to point fingers at a complete psychopathic dolt, there's Uncle Joe Stalin. He was fortunate in having millions more bodies to burn through to coever his mistakes than did Old Adolf. :)
A total annihilation of a Union Army early in the war using the tactic you described may have done the trick, but if the Union was able to turn the such a win in portraying the south as a Satan’s mad dog causing a combination of almost irrational fear for the civilian population of the North and a righteous need for revenge I think it would have brought a flood of resources and manpower, which would had led to the South being laid to waste and despoil to a point of utter desolation. It might had even lead to a slow done in the western expansion of America as whole tracts of land in the South would have been open to resettlement and homesteaders which would have change the very nature of the south. Just the way for Native Americans.
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.