Could the South Have Won?

[Fudbucker]

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?

 

[catsmate]

Yes. For certain values of "South" and "win".

 

[Trebuchet]

No. Much like Japan in WWII, they faced overwhelming industrial power and had unrealistic expectations.

 

[John Nowak]

Yes, as Fudbucker intimates, it is always possible to win a war if your opponent decides to walk away from it.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

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

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.

 

[Fizil]

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.

Woah dude, chill out. He said nothing about the South deserving to win. The fact of the matter is back then, the North didn't see things the way we do now. While victory through force of arms was never a real option for the South, it is certainly true that there were various points in the War where if things had gone differently, it could have led to an alternate history where a peace was negotiated without the South surrendering. I think it is reasonable to say that could be classified as the South winning the war.

 

[crescent]

My impression was that the war was not universally popular in the North. Victory for the North required the North to be on the offensive. Although the South made some incursions into the North, that was not for any long-term territorial gains but to try to make the war more costly for the North.

All the South had to do to win was to get the North to stop pushing into the South. The South did not need to invade the North, only to get the North to stop invading the South.

There was a realistic chance of that happening.

That said, it is good that the South lost.



(A simplistic way of putting it is to say that all the South had do to win was to not lose.)

 

[Crossbow]

I would say no.

The South did not have the industrial and economic resources to produce the large and well equipped army that would be needed. Also, the South did not have the governmental organization needed to produce a militarily that could win against the North.

 

[Giz]

If the North held its nerve, it was always going to beat the South... the sheer disparity in industrial production and population would see to that.

The danger was that the North, frustrated by seeming lack of progress, would abandon the war before the South had been ground down. This almost happened. In 1864, the Democrats were running McClellan on a peace platform (which would have effectively given the South independence) and they were leading in the polls. 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!)

 

[Bob001]

....
In 1864, the Democrats were running McClellan on a peace platform (which would have effectively given the South independence) and they were leading in the polls.
.....

Not to digress too far, but there were polls in 1864? Who ran them? How were they conducted? How reliable were they?

 

[kookbreaker]

If the Confederacy had won I would have given them 3 or 4 years before some part tried to split off or even rejoin the Union. Most likely in the western states or anywhere the plantation wasn't the dominant system.

 

[Craig B]

If the Confederacy had won I would have given them 3 or 4 years before some part tried to split off or even rejoin the Union. Most likely in the western states or anywhere the plantation wasn't the dominant system.

Yes. W Virginia did that almost immediately, on account of the plantation not being the dominant economic system in that part of Virginia. It rejoined the Union in 1863.

 

[Crossbow]

If the Confederacy had won I would have given them 3 or 4 years before some part tried to split off or even rejoin the Union. Most likely in the western states or anywhere the plantation wasn't the dominant system.

And during the Civil War there were several cases where various enclaves and towns split off from the Confederacy.

And, as previously mentioned, there was the famous case of West Viriginia rejoining the Union on 20 JUN 1863.

 

[bigred]

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.

LOL

Anyway, back to reality and the actual discussion......

My impression was that the war was not universally popular in the North.

Far from it. Nor was the emancipation, for that matter.

(A simplistic way of putting it is to say that all the South had do to win was to not lose.)

That's pretty much it. And they weren't all that far from pulling it off, it would seem. Losing Jackson (and Gettysburg, of course) IMO cannot be overstated.

That said, McClellan was arguably the best Confederate General ever. If Lincoln had given the boot earlier, the war could have easily been over sooner.

 

[dudalb]

And during the Civil War there were several cases where various enclaves and towns split off from the Confederacy.

And, as previously mentioned, there was the famous case of West Viriginia rejoining the Union on 20 JUN 1863.

THe current movie "The Free State Of Jones" concerns such a breakaway area.
Sad to say,the movies is not very good.

 

[Fudbucker]

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.

WTF?

 

[Fudbucker]

No. Much like Japan in WWII, they faced overwhelming industrial power and had unrealistic expectations.

The Vietnamese also faced overwhelming industrial power. All you need to win, is for the other guy to give up. We were never going to give up fighting Japan, but I think we might have given up fighting the South at a couple of key points (one was the 1864 election, the other is if Antietam had gone differently and Europe had stepped in).

 

[simonxlong]

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.

 

[Jules Galen]

The Vietnamese also faced overwhelming industrial power. All you need to win, is for the other guy to give up. We were never going to give up fighting Japan, but I think we might have given up fighting the South at a couple of key points (one was the 1864 election, the other is if Antietam had gone differently and Europe had stepped in).

You got that war all wrong. Ya' see, there never was a South Vietnamese people who were US allies - just a bunch of petty generals and Dictators the US put in power. The entire country of Vietnam - North and South - were of a single mind and they hated the Americans.

Here's a map of the Tet Offensive: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/TetMap.jpg

Now, when you realize the Southern-Vietnamese support the Vietcong needed to simultaneously launch so many strikes, then you get the idea: the entire country was anti-US. In reality, there was no North Vietnam, and there was no South Vietnam - there was just Vietnam.

 

[Jules Galen]

No. Much like Japan in WWII, they faced overwhelming industrial power and had unrealistic expectations.

Exactly, and by late 1864 the Union had an Army and Industrial Base that was unstoppable. Additionally, the Union Generals and Officers knew how to win by this time and I believe you could have replaced all of the Generals and the Armies would never even slowed a bit.

In fact, I think I could have led those armies to victory post 1864.

General Rosecranz: General Galen, what is to be the Battle Plan as we face General Lee?

General Galen: First, I'm going to go roll a joint and write dirty telegrams to General Sherman. Meanwhile, you Boyz keep doing that Voodo, that you do, so well! Yeah...that's the plan!