Could the South Have Won the War?

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

[GreyFriar]

On a more historical bent and without science fiction I recommend as “alternate histories:”

Newt Gingrich & William Fortschen’s civil war trilogy see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettysburg:_A_Novel_of_the_Civil_War

Or Peter Tsouas’ civil war trilogy: the 3rd volume of which was just published.

http://www.amazon.com/Britannias-Fist-Civil-Alternate-History/dp/1574888234

[don-o]

You are south hating bigot. Let me tell what the North would be with out the South, A FULLY COMMUNIST DICTATORSHIP.

iirc, in Turtledove's books, Lincoln was not assassinated and became a Red.

[Pearls Before Swine]

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.”

Different circumstances today, but the "incapability of the people to govern themselves" is definitely the issue of the day.

[cripplecreek]

Sam Houston was a wise man. He felt that the rights of the states were being infringed upon but obviously felt that it was foolish to engage in a war when diplomacy was available.

Lincoln did reach out to Houston to find an agreement but the war had already started and his loyalties were with the south despite his disagreement with the war. His son was killed fighting in the war.

One of many good men on both sides.

[CodeToad]

“A FULLY COMMUNIST DICTATORSHIP”

The North would have been as we are now but years earlier. We are socialist, we are tyrannical, and we have communists at the helm.

[DoodleDawg]

If not for Gettysburg, it is quite possible the South would have won.

Gettysburg or not, Vicksbugh still falls. The South is still divided. Grant still advances in the west. The blockade continues. International recognition is still not forthcoming. And the South still loses. Maybe not in April 1865 but certainly not long after.

[Vendome]

Not without coal and steel they weren’t.....

[Bigtigermike]

Of course Lee and every confederate general dream would have been a quick victory to end it but realistically he saw that if the high casualties and a prolonged war could make it political then they had a chance at a truce. You’re looking at it in hindsight that the Union didn’t falter and the war of attrition (wearing out the politicians) embolden many in the North and it did but the Anaconda plan and the determination of the North despite the horrific casualties made the attempt of wearing out the “politicans” futile. That’s a fact

[Kartographer]

If Great Britain had allied with the Confederacy

Great Britain would never ally itself with a country with the institution of slavery and to many Southerners were to proud to give it up even if it meant they would win.

[Pecos]

With ancestors on both sides of that conflict, and after having lived most of my life south of the Mason-Dixon line, my take on the "failed state" comment had nothing to do with body counts. IMHO, if the Confederacy had successfully repelled the Union long enough (and won at Gettysburg), they would have forced northern politicians to declare a quasi-peace, but the South would have never become a successful nation. Slavery, the cornerstone of the Confederate constitution, cannot operate an industrial economy. It could never achieve today's high tech accomplishments, and therefore would always be an economic failure.

Please note that I have not said anything about the inhabitants of the South or indulged in any bigoted statements. Slavery would have been as much a blockade to progress as the hatred we see in the Middle East. Different sources, but the same outcome.

Harry Turtledove's alternative history series on the subject make for useful reading. Not gospel, but interesting reading.

[BenLurkin]

“What if” the years preceding the war had not seen massive influxes of Irish and German immigrants to the North — who had no understanding of or commitment to the Consitution?

The manpower avialible for the norther invasion would have been cut drmatically (there was an entire corps of German immigrants who barely spoke English) — and those fighting would have had greter reservations about the idea of invading soverieng states.

[taxcontrol]

I believe that it was possible but it would have required a change of tactics that would have been dishonorable in the minds of most of the military leaders of the day. It would have required the intentional destruction of forces of the North. Not just winning battles, but the willful and deliberate pursuit and killing of retreating forces.

[Regal]

What party controlled the south throughout history, only recently losing control?

Where did we get the term “Yellow Dog?”

[getitright]

haha Shelby / Ken Burns. I love those. My wife and daughters tease me. Netflix suggestions- “since you watched the most boring documentary ever, you may also be interested in the second most boring documentary ever...”

[citizen352]

The American Civil War might have been completely unnecessary. The institution of slavery was becoming economically unfeasible. Lincoln could have negotiated with the Southern States to return to the Union and purchase every slave in the south for much less than human and economic cost of the American Civil War. The 160 years of history would have been entirely different. The world would have been different. All of that energy that was wasted in killing and destruction could have been used to build and grow.

[cuban leaf]

The wild card is the population of the north losing its will. It’s why I made the Vietnam comparison.

But you could be right.

Have you ever read “Guns of the South” by Harry Turtledove. Fascinating read and the only book of his I REALLY like.

[NTHockey]

My opinion is the Confederacy died when Stonewall Jackson died. With Jackson, Gettysburg turns out differently and the North would have been more agreeable to ending the war.

[hinckley buzzard]

Slaveholders needed to expand Westward because that was where new states were being formed, and new congressional seats being created. To maintain a viable presence in Congress the slavery interests had to get their share of those new seats.

[Regal]

And the slavery economy is about the closest thing to pure communism that has ever hit these shores. Close to communism, and distant from capitalism.

Actually it was northern intervention that saved the south from it’s communist self.

You’re welcome.

[tumblindice]

When that reprobate General Sickles moved his men out of position at Cemetery Ridge, against orders, and the bold Mississipi general (name escapes me) moved to capitalize on the mistake, if not for Wisconsin’s LTC Dawes filling the breech, the Union’s supply line (and escape route, Baltimore Pike?) would have been cut.

“Pickett’s charge” is where US artillery earned the title `King of Battle.’

But for that there would have been nothing standing between Lee’s army—Lee admittedly bled but never timid like a string of dismissed federal brass hats—nothing between him and Washington DC but routed Yankee troops.

I can see the Union having to sue for peace if Lincoln were then captured. Check mate, CSA.