Could the South Have Won?

[Fudbucker]

I honestly think the chance of Lincoln losing the election is still pretty overrated. The election was in November of 1864 and the fall of Atlanta in early September, a full 2+ months earlier.

Sherman had only begun the campaign in May and was successfully moving towards the city of Atlanta as he outmaneuvered Johnston's army, meaning that he was achieving his objective without actually having to fight. As much as Johnston wanted to avoid a straight up fight, Sherman was just a happy to avoid one so long as he kept moving ahead. Sherman had always been a proponent of using his larger army's maneuverability as a major component of his strategy. The catch was, at some point, Sherman was going to force a battle even if Johnston had been left in charge and tried to avoid one.

For instance, Sherman could break off his drive to Atlanta and start marching around GA destroying everything in his path. If Johnston doesn't fight, Sherman would have a free hand to wreck the bulk of the state. The fact is that Johnston was outmatched on virtually every level, meaning his only real hope was a mistake by Sherman that was was severe enough to cost a major battle. Sherman simply had control of the campaign, meaning that Johnston was always going to be reactionary, and Sherman could change things up as he needed to.

Johnston could only play the maneuver, counter maneuver game so long before he had to engage. Sherman was always in the position where he was going to receive more men, more materials as the battle dragged on. Nothing Johnston was doing was going to stop Sherman in the long run; it was a delaying action. He knew this, and he was trying to pick his moment, when the battle would have been strategically in his favor. I don't believe that Johnston could have avoided a pitch battle for much longer, especially not 3+ full months until the election, and even a "win" in the short term would probably have been so costly as to effectively be a loss for the Confederacy.

In fact, Johnston committed to attacking right before he was relieved of command, as he attempted to attack one of Sherman's three columns at Peachtree Creek where he finally believed he had the advantage. Hood continued this plan, but the Union held and the Confederates were forced to fall back.

My point being is that the Fall of Atlanta was going to happen, whether Hood or Johnston held command. The Confederates were simply out manned, out supplied, Union soldiers were competent, and the Union was being commanded by a highly competent commander. Atlanta was going to fall well before the November election, Hood or no Hood.

Good reading!

 

[Hans]

The South could only win if the North for some reason developed a political weakness or for some unknown reason Britain or France came to her aid.

 

[Mike!]

The South could have won had they put more time and energy into their atomic weapons programs.

 

[tyr_13]

Both the political and economic systems of the Confederacy were inherently unstable and failing on their own lack of merit. Even if the North had stopped fighting and the Confederacy 'won' the war, they still would have quickly lost. Much of the run up to the Civil War was about the failure of the South to adapt to a changing world.

 

[Jules Galen]

The South could only win if the North for some reason developed a political weakness or for some unknown reason Britain or France came to her aid.

By the close of 1864, Jesus H Christ and Gawd Almighty himself could have come to the aid of the South, yet Grant, Sherman and Sheridan would have still been unstoppable.

 

[Meadmaker]

At the 11th hour, Sherman took Atlanta and gave Lincoln the victory to show that progress was being made and that the war could be won.

A little too close for comfort. (Thank god Hood was given command in time!)

Was September really the 11th hour, though? So maybe they could have held on a bit longer. It's likely the Union still would have had command of the situation, and that would have been obvious to the voters. Maybe Lincoln loses a few percent of the vote, and the election is a squeaker instead of a rout.

I think the only alternative history that could have resulted in an election change would have been a major battle that the Union actually lost. If either Lee or Johnston could have forced an actual significant defeat on a Union army, then maybe.

 

[Brainster]

Suppose the South had followed up its surprise victory at Bull Run/Manassas with an immediate invasion of Washington DC?

 

[Loss Leader]

I didn't see one of these active, so apologies if it's already been covered.

I think there was at least one occasion where the South could have at least gotten much better terms for quitting the war.

The CSA lost the second Lee stepped into Pennsylvania. Had he held his position in Virginia and fought a purely defensive war, he would have lasted longer and the rust belt states would have eventually forced the US to accept peace.

Had the CSA fought a purely defensive war in the east but completely taken the Mississippi and New Orleans, it probably could have convinced France at least to recognize its independence. Once one of the superpowers took a side, the war would have ended quickly.

Had Lee not been a gentleman and advised his men to flee into the mountains to continue a guerrilla fight, the war could have lasted well into the 20th century.

 

[JoeMorgue]

No. The raw numbers were just too stacked against the South from the beginning. Unless the South somehow managed to convince the North to face them in a winner take all cotton picking contest the war was over except for the waiting the moment it began.

I mean sure we can make up after the fact what ifs all day but that's meaningless. Without redefining the concept of a military "win" to an absurd degree the south could not have won.

"If only XXXXXX had happened the South would have won!" is one of those weird little things that just get hung up on and there's always an air of distasteful wishful thinking about it to me.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The South could only win if the North for some reason developed a political weakness or for some unknown reason Britain or France came to her aid.

Okay but invoking foreign intervention stacks the deck even further against the South. Diplomacy doesn't happen in a vacuum and the disparage between the quality and effectiveness of Northern and Southern diplomacy is as disparate as everything else except the ability to subjugate an entire race into picking your cotton, and the North refused several offer to settle the war via "Subjugating Cotton Picking Contest."

Much like the myth of the Brilliant Southern General (in reality neither side in the Civil War represented anything resembling a peak in military strategy. It was a classic case of fighting a war with this era's weapons and last era's strategy, which historically always leads to a heartbreakingly large bodycount) the idea that the South had a snowball's chance of getting any of the great European powers on their side is wishful thinking practically on a deus ex machina level. England could get all the cotton they wanted from India and contrary to popular belief you really can't get France to do anything just by saying it will piss of England. The South had nothing to bargain with diplomatically, even without having to offset the unpopularity of slavery so invoking some 11th hour diplomatic miracle is as fanciful as saying the South could have won if the Ghost Army from Return of the King showed up and won the war for them.

 

[Fudbucker]

Was September really the 11th hour, though? So maybe they could have held on a bit longer. It's likely the Union still would have had command of the situation, and that would have been obvious to the voters. Maybe Lincoln loses a few percent of the vote, and the election is a squeaker instead of a rout.

I think the only alternative history that could have resulted in an election change would have been a major battle that the Union actually lost. If either Lee or Johnston could have forced an actual significant defeat on a Union army, then maybe.

Johnston was a defensive fighter, the weapons at the time favored defenders, and Sherman still made the occasional tactical blunder of assaulting positions be had no business assaulting. It's possible Sherman could have lost a battle and had to lick his wounds for awhile.

 

[Planigale]

Why not come out and name the terms you would have liked to see? Retain the 'right' to human property? Please. These were traitors: to the Republic, to the Christianity they held dear, to the rule of law, to common human decency, to every single oath and promise they said to subscribe to. What, beyond completely unconditional surrender, was deserved for pro-slavery rebels who fired upon fellow citizens in a democracy? Only a little extra butt-kicking, as in their terms: "spare the rod, spoil the child."

As The South is a world leader in the execution of black men and in the denial of inconvenient truths of many sorts, even today, I'd say the place got off damn lightly, as apparently few if any lessons in civics and good citizenship, let alone the Enlightenment, were learned.

Most of this could be said about the colonies rebelling against Britain. Certainly preserving slavery was a consequence. It should be remembered (as Canada demonstrates) that rebellion was not a unanimous view amongst European residents of Britains North American territories.

 

[Planigale]

The South could only win if the North for some reason developed a political weakness or for some unknown reason Britain or France came to her aid.

The problem with rewriting history is you can always come up with a scenario. So if the North had done a 'Hitler' and decided to invade Canada, precipitating a war on another front. (viz RMS Trent).

 

[Aepervius]

to the Christianity they held dear,

Per see Christianity has nothing against slavery, except that slave should be properly handled. That is why there were slaves in Christian country without a problem. Only at some late point many country started to make no-slavery laws. For example for metropolitan France it was 1300 something (yes some part in far south of France it continued in spite of the law - and reintroduced in colonies by Napoleon among others until 1850 something).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline

Heck even in England it was abolished earlier.

 

[simonxlong]

Johnston was a defensive fighter, the weapons at the time favored defenders, and Sherman still made the occasional tactical blunder of assaulting positions be had no business assaulting. It's possible Sherman could have lost a battle and had to lick his wounds for awhile.

Johnston was playing a defensive game because he had to. Sherman kept using his numerical advantage to simply move around Johnston, forcing Johnston to redeploy. It was a cat and mouse game, where Johnston was clearly the mouse, being outnumbered significantly. As soon as Johnston felt himself in a position to attack with a reasonable chance of doing some real damage to a part of Sherman's force, he ordered an attack, but was relieved. Hood continued the attack, but it stalled.

The one thing that Johnston understood that neither Hood nor Jefferson Davis seemed to was that a battle with Sherman was a losing proposition unless you had a true tactical advantage. The Army of Tennessee could not trade men with Sherman and come out ahead. They didn't have the man power or the supplies to swap blow for blow. That's why Johnston waited to attack until Sherman divided his army into three columns.

Johnston was between a rock and a hard place.

 

[Planigale]

Per see Christianity has nothing against slavery, except that slave should be properly handled. That is why there were slaves in Christian country without a problem. Only at some late point many country started to make no-slavery laws. For example for metropolitan France it was 1300 something (yes some part in far south of France it continued in spite of the law - and reintroduced in colonies by Napoleon among others until 1850 something).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline

Heck even in England it was abolished earlier.

The view is more that England (by which is meant post 1066 England), never had slavery. It was never a legal concept. One can argue about whether serfs were slaves, but in mediaeval terms they were not. Subsequently slavery was never 'abolished' in England it was just declared never to have existed. (This is different from abolishing the slave trade.) This is why the legal view was that if a slave stepped on to a Royal Navy vessel (English territory), the slave became free, although almost inevitably pressed in to the Navy! Equally slaves brought into England became free. Of course a legal concept and reality might be different.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Most of this could be said about the colonies rebelling against Britain. Certainly preserving slavery was a consequence.

"Preserving slavery as a consequence." Sure.

Preserving slavery as the sole and utter reason for the existence of the breakaway state, no.

Every country has skeletons in their closets. But most countries don't go to war for the sole reason of keeping those skeletons out in the field picking their cotton.

 

[Fudbucker]

Johnston was playing a defensive game because he had to. Sherman kept using his numerical advantage to simply move around Johnston, forcing Johnston to redeploy. It was a cat and mouse game, where Johnston was clearly the mouse, being outnumbered significantly. As soon as Johnston felt himself in a position to attack with a reasonable chance of doing some real damage to a part of Sherman's force, he ordered an attack, but was relieved. Hood continued the attack, but it stalled.

The one thing that Johnston understood that neither Hood nor Jefferson Davis seemed to was that a battle with Sherman was a losing proposition unless you had a true tactical advantage. The Army of Tennessee could not trade men with Sherman and come out ahead. They didn't have the man power or the supplies to swap blow for blow. That's why Johnston waited to attack until Sherman divided his army into three columns.

Johnston was between a rock and a hard place.

Yes, but what if he hadn't been relieved and had scored a victory against Sherman? Atlanta might have stayed in the South's hands until the election.

 

[Corsair 115]

The South could have won had they put more time and energy into their atomic weapons programs.

And more giant mechanical spiders.

 

[blutoski]

"Preserving slavery as a consequence." Sure.

Preserving slavery as the sole and utter reason for the existence of the breakaway state, no.

Every country has skeletons in their closets. But most countries don't go to war for the sole reason of keeping those skeletons out in the field picking their cotton.

Worth noting that the original goal of the union was not limited to secession. The original beef was not that outsiders (Washington) would prohibit slavery, but rather, that nonslave states had the gall to refuse to honour out of state property rights and spend their taxpayers' money chasing down and returning escaped slaves. Attempts to pass national laws failed, and they stopped seeing any value in the USA if state lines were property sieves.

So, this is the irony... the South was upset because they couldn't project their model across nonslave states, and the trajectory was that they would be outnumbered by more and more states coming online, none of which would be slavers.

I expect the original motive for secession threats was to force Washington into concessions for interstate respect of slaves as property, but when Washington called their bluff, they were screwed and had to either back down or double down and hope the USA would concede once blood started spilling. A 19th Century Brexit, if you will.