Could the South Have Won?

SpitfireIX said:
Additionally, while it is easy to criticize Davis's decision in hindsight, the situation he faced at the time was both desperate and complicated.
Click to expand...

Same with Truman's decision to drop the bomb - after a few years of total war, everything on a knife edge, major cities completely destroyed in Europe and Asia, its very hard for people nowadays to imagine those circumstances, that pressure, and how it informed choices made by leaders at the time.

Hindsight is 20/20 is the shorthand for this, and everyone knows this as common wisdom - yet fails to apply it on sweeping judgments made on historical figures.
 
Praktik said:
Same with Truman's decision to drop the bomb - after a few years of total war, everything on a knife edge, major cities completely destroyed in Europe and Asia, its very hard for people nowadays to imagine those circumstances, that pressure, and how it informed choices made by leaders at the time.

Hindsight is 20/20 is the shorthand for this, and everyone knows this as common wisdom - yet fails to apply it on sweeping judgments made on historical figures.
Click to expand...

Derail, but even with hindsight, if it shortened the war by 2-months it would have saved lives, regardless of any costs of invasion. It was a terrible weapon for a terrible situation. Given what happened in Okinawa the alternatives were horrific.
 
Locknar said:
Historical novel "Killer Angles" is an outstanding read on this.
Click to expand...

Seconded.

(But in case anyone rushes out an orders a book on the Anglo-Saxon invasions... it is "The Killer Angels")

(Sidenote: skip the prequel/sequels by the author's son)
 
Locknar said:
Historical novel "Killer Angles" is an outstanding read on this.
Click to expand...
True, though while I am a huge Chamberlain fan, he was hero at Gettysburg for bravery less than critical action; had he lost, it is unlikely the battle would have been lost as history has suggested. Let me reiterate, I am a Chamberlain fan and do consider him a hero and true role model.

For critical action that mattered at Gettysburg, I would rank Buford, Reynolds, and Hancock.
 
Garrette said:
True, though while I am a huge Chamberlain fan, he was hero at Gettysburg for bravery less than critical action; had he lost, it is unlikely the battle would have been lost as history has suggested. Let me reiterate, I am a Chamberlain fan and do consider him a hero and true role model.

For critical action that mattered at Gettysburg, I would rank Buford, Reynolds, and Hancock.
Click to expand...

True for the Northern side. But let's not forget the Southerners. Just as less than stellar Northern Generalship had contributed to defeats for the Army of the Potomac, the leadership of the Army of Northern Virginia (principally Lee, but also Ewell and JEB Stewart) dropped the ball in the Gettysburg campaign and, for once, the Union didn't fumble the turnover. Too much (Sickles, I'm looking at you).
 
Giz said:
Seconded.

(But in case anyone rushes out an orders a book on the Anglo-Saxon invasions... it is "The Killer Angels")

(Sidenote: skip the prequel/sequels by the author's son)
Click to expand...
Doh! Thanks for catching that.

Garrette said:
True, though while I am a huge Chamberlain fan, he was hero at Gettysburg for bravery less than critical action; had he lost, it is unlikely the battle would have been lost as history has suggested. Let me reiterate, I am a Chamberlain fan and do consider him a hero and true role model.
Click to expand...
Would the Union line have collapsed if Little Round Top had fallen...there are a lot of "what if's" either way but clearly Chamberlin viewed this as a danger to the point of leading a fixed bayonet charge, without ammo to hold his line. Chamberlain is a often over looked historical figure, for this and his entire career.

Could the South have won the war, IMO no. At the start they had the edge in military leadership, cavalry, and small arms expertise. What they lacked was the industrial machine, population, and resources for a prolonged war let alone self sustainment post war. Their mind set was much different, fighting to protect their homes.

Over time the North was able to close the gap re military leadership, cavalry and small arms....and learned to exploit their clear naval and artillery dominance. This, coupled with the North's eventual slash and burn, fighting to destroy simply ground down a South already sort on resources.
 
Last edited:
Giz said:
True for the Northern side. But let's not forget the Southerners. Just as less than stellar Northern Generalship had contributed to defeats for the Army of the Potomac, the leadership of the Army of Northern Virginia (principally Lee, but also Ewell and JEB Stewart) dropped the ball in the Gettysburg campaign and, for once, the Union didn't fumble the turnover. Too much (Sickles, I'm looking at you).
Click to expand...
I can't disagree.
 
Locknar said:
Doh! Thanks for catching that.

Would the Union line have collapsed if Little Round Top had fallen...there are a lot of "what if's" either way but clearly Chamberlin viewed this as a danger to the point of leading a fixed bayonet charge, without ammo to hold his line. Chamberlain is a often over looked historical figure, for this and his entire career.
Could the South have won the war, IMO no. At the start they had the edge in military leadership, cavalry, and small arms expertise. What they lacked was the industrial machine, population, and resources for a prolonged war let alone self sustainment post war. Their mind set was much different, fighting to protect their homes.

Over time the North was able to close the gap re military leadership, cavalry and small arms....and learned to exploit their clear naval and artillery dominance. This, coupled with the North's eventual slash and burn, fighting to destroy simply ground down a South already sort on resources.
Click to expand...
It must seem as if I am trying to diminish Chamberlain's contribution; I'm not. But he viewed it as a danger because his boss, Colonel Vincent, told him it was, and Vincent told him because Warren told him. When General Warren first noticed Little Round Top was empty, the danger was real, and Warren saved the day (one of the several times) by ordering troops over which he had no authority to the summit, but by the time Chamberlain fought his actions, there were significant numbers behind Little Round Top, and Longstreet's Corps was so depleted it could not have progressed far nor held the ground long.

As to Chamberlain being overlooked, you are entirely right, but it is becoming less so, and my personal opinion is that while his performance as a soldier has few equals, his greatest contribution was off the battlefield when Grant gave Chamberlain command of the troops receiving Lee's surrender.
 
Garrette said:
It must seem as if I am trying to diminish Chamberlain's contribution; I'm not. But he viewed it as a danger because his boss, Colonel Vincent, told him it was, and Vincent told him because Warren told him. When General Warren first noticed Little Round Top was empty, the danger was real, and Warren saved the day (one of the several times) by ordering troops over which he had no authority to the summit, but by the time Chamberlain fought his actions, there were significant numbers behind Little Round Top, and Longstreet's Corps was so depleted it could not have progressed far nor held the ground long.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

When I was in school we did a battle field walk at Gettysburg with a Major from West Point, at the same time of year. It is quite something to consider....the fighting at Little Round top, or the Confederates, in heavy clothes, charging over a open field, under constant Union artillery fire.
 
Fudbucker said:
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.

In 1864, things weren't going so well. Grant was bogged down in a siege outside Petersburg. Sherman was trying to bring on a general engagement with Johnston, but Johntson knowing Lincoln was very unpopular, kept deftly maneuvering his army out Sherman's way. It looked to the war-weary public that not much had been accomplished, and McClellan (McClellan of all people!) looked like he might actually defeat Abe in the election.

We know what happened: Johnston was replaced by Hood, who gave Sherman the battle he wanted, and Atlanta was lost. Lincoln was reelected.

But what if Johnston had stayed in? What if he had played the defensive warfare game and drawn things out such that Atlanta would have been spared (or only under siege)? Could McClellan have beaten Lincoln? And if McClellan had won, what would his policy towards the Southern states have been?
Click to expand...

Northern logistics would beat Southern willpower.

The old saying is always true - amateurs talk tactics and professionals talk logistics.
 
BStrong said:
Northern logistics would beat Southern willpower.

The old saying is always true - amateurs talk tactics and professionals talk logistics.
Click to expand...
War is a continuation of policy. It was never a question of northern logistics. It was a question of whether the North had the political will to press their advantage. That was the thing the South had to test.
 
theprestige said:
War is a continuation of policy. It was never a question of northern logistics. It was a question of whether the North had the political will to press their advantage. That was the thing the South had to test.
Click to expand...

Agreed. If it was just logistics, we wouldn't have lost Vietnam.
 
BStrong said:
Northern logistics would beat Southern willpower.
Click to expand...


I think Northern willpower rose dramatically from 1863 on. Logistics and willpower followed from Northern victories - the ability to hold railroads and telegraph lines open, to use the Mississippi, to supply the soldiers with food, etc.

After the fall of Vicksburg, there were no actual "logistics" from the Southern side. And once the CSA government started moving, there was no hope of frontline generals communicating with anybody who might actually know the bigger picture.

That's why we all owe our freedom to the greatest Civil War General of all time - Jubilation T. Cornpone!
 
Loss Leader said:
I think Northern willpower rose dramatically from 1863 on. Logistics and willpower followed from Northern victories - the ability to hold railroads and telegraph lines open, to use the Mississippi, to supply the soldiers with food, etc.

!
Click to expand...

Really? I thought that the difficulty in keeping numbers up in the Army of the Potomac in late 1863 and in 1864 and the need for the draft (and the rise of the peace democrats) all testified to northern morale faltering in the mid to late war.

It was a good thing that Sherman took Atlanta- he showed that progress could be made and that the war could be won. Kept northern spirits up.
 
It was a good thing that Sherman took Atlanta- he showed that progress could be made and that the war could be won. Kept northern spirits up.
Click to expand...


Sherman's destruction of Atlanta took place long after the CSA's eastern and western troops had been cut off from each other.
 
Fudbucker said:
Agreed. If it was just logistics, we wouldn't have lost Vietnam.
Click to expand...

We had a logistic tail that the North didn't.

If you've never seen the old NVA film footage allegedly depicting the movement of artillery pieces and ammunition into place around Dien Ben Phu by human power alone I highly recommend it. The Vietnamese were and are tough soldiers and they were never shy about sacrificing themselves and Giap wasn't shy about sending them out to do it.

Vietnam from the western powers side of the question was a lost cause before Americans started on-the-ground advisers post DBP and when we started the classified part of the war in Laos in '59.

Too bad nobody in DC listened to anyone on the scene that knew what they were talking about.
 
Last edited:
Locknar said:
Agreed.

When I was in school we did a battle field walk at Gettysburg with a Major from West Point, at the same time of year. It is quite something to consider....the fighting at Little Round top, or the Confederates, in heavy clothes, charging over a open field, under constant Union artillery fire.
Click to expand...
I'm familiar with the USMA terrain walk there. I've been on site a few times. Walking the swale is something else. The scale of most of it was expected, but there was a reverse surprise at Chamberlain's position; I had expected it to cover more ground, but it felt very compressed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom