If the South had had a different president, it might have won. Jefferson Davis made one mind-bogglingly dumb decision after another.
This is at best highly debatable. As Bruce Catton put it,
Davis had done the best he could do in an impossible job, and if it is easy to show where he made grievous mistakes, it is difficult to show that any other man, given the materials available, could have done much better. He had courage, integrity, tenacity, [and] devotion to his cause . . .
If he had accepted the European offer for a much larger loan just after the Confederacy was formed, Europe would have had too much of a financial stake in the Confederacy not to recognize it and not to help it more. But Jefferson Davis declined the huge loan that was offered and opted for a much smaller one.
No. The European Union didn't exist in 1861, and no European power offered to loan money to the Confederacy at any time during the war. Rather,
The Confederacy floated two small loans in Europe during the American Civil War: cotton bonds in London and unbacked, high-risk “junk bonds” in Amsterdam. These two loans accounted for less than one percent of Confederate military expenditures during the war. Funds from the two loans were used to build ships in Europe, purchase supplies, and finance overseas operations (Gentry, 1970). Weidenmier (2002b) also argues that the South floated the cotton bonds for political gain. The Confederacy believed the war debt could open the way for sovereign recognition or aid from England or France. [
source]
Further, these two bond issues didn't occur until 1863. The one grain of truth in your statement is that the cotton bonds (aka Erlanger bonds) were wildly oversubscribed, due to the fact that cotton prices in Europe had skyrocketed due to the Federal blockade.
And, yes, Davis's decision to relieve Johnston was bad enough, but to replace him with John Bell Hood, when Lee clearly warned him that Hood was not suited to command so large a force, was a blunder of staggering proportions.
Lee did not "clearly warn" Davis that Hood was unsuited to command.
Bragg reported that Johnston deserved to be fired and Hood emerged as the best candidate to replace him. Davis mulled his options and asked Robert E. Lee for advice.
Lee provided a less than enthusiastic endorsement of Hood, as he wrote: “Hood is a good fighter, very industrious on the battle field, careless off, and I have had no opportunity of judging his action, when the whole responsibility rested upon him.” [
bolding mine][
source]
Additionally, while it is easy to criticize Davis's decision in hindsight, the situation he faced at the time was both desperate and complicated. See Miller,
John Bell Hood and the Fight for Civil War Memory, pp. 118-121.
Or, going back a few years, if Davis had not cut off food to the federal garrison on Fort Sumter, Lincoln would not have been forced to make a decision on the fort so soon.
The food had been "cut off" more than a month before Davis was inaugurated, when South Carolina state forces opened fire on an unarmed civilian ship, the
Star of the West, charted to resupply the fort. Additionally, Lincoln had previously announced his decision in his inaugural address, namely, that he intended to "hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government."
Davis compounded his error by rashly deciding to bombard Fort Sumter after he was notified that Lincoln was going to resupply the garrison's food supply, which gave the Radical Republicans all the excuse they needed to scream for blood.
Davis's decision, though likely a mistake, was supported by most of his cabinet. Further, many in Congress were already calling the
Star of the West incident an act of war. And if you believe that Lincoln chose to attempt to put down the rebellion by force only or primarily because of pressure from Radical Republicans, then, frankly, you don't know very much about Lincoln.
