Here's one for you lads.
Did he ever stand a chance of winning? Or was the South just too resource poor to win? Could he have done more to achieve European recognition.
How could he have better handled the Bragg affair?
>Did he ever stand a chance of winning?
yeah, kinda. The south was winning up until about 1863.
But then again, as the late great Shelbey Foote said, the North was fighting the war with one arm behind its back, and if it really got desperate enough, it would have just gone all out
>Did he (Jefferson Davis/The South) ever stand a chance of winning?
Actually yes. In the initial stages of the war, when both sides were particularly even in force standing and minus Staff Generals, The South had its greatest chance. The strategy of both sides was to effectively make this a quick war.
Even then that's only accounting for manpower. Unfortunately the Confederacy was out gunned at sea. What was the major disadvantage to the south though was it was very agrarian. Although it had sectors that were industrialized, its majority was food production as well as textiles. Where as the North not only had industrial power but also the food production abilities out of Ohio.
The South needed a quick victory because The South didn't have the ability to uphold a long running war.
If the first few battles went more into the Confederacies favor as well as an early hard pushes into Kentucky, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. It may have been a hugely different story. Most of the battles even though went into confederate favor or were indecisive. The victories were not significant enough to lay claim to a stable advantage.
As >>530133 said about 1863. The South had lost the ability to fight the growing advantage of the northern industrial power and man power that the North was able to maintain.
>the North was fighting the war with one arm behind its back, and if it really got desperate enough, it would have just gone all out
You could've said that about the US in Vietnam or Iraq. The Union always had a much larger advantage, but as the invading side they needed the political will to keep the war going. If the south continued to win battles (they were already punching way above their weight) then it would be perfectly possible that a the peace democrats convince the northern populace to demand an end to the war.
Once Lincoln had proclaimed Emancipation I don't anything could have convinced the North to give up. Sure there was resistance to the migration of blacks (in New York namely), but I think the idea of the war becoming a "higher" cause gave the war further validation.
Native Americans in the American Civil War composed various Native American bands, tribes, and nations. Native Americans served in both the Union and Confederate military during the American Civil War. At the outbreak of the war, for example, the minority party of the Cherokees gave its allegiance to the Confederacy, while originally the majority party went for the North. Native Americans fought knowing they might jeopardize their freedom, unique cultures, and ancestral lands if they ended up on the losing side of the Civil War. 28,693 Native Americans served in the Union and Confederate armies during the Civil War, participating in battles such as Pea Ridge, Second Manassas, Antietam, Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor, and in Federal assaults on Petersburg. A few Native American tribes, such as the Creek and the Choctaw, were slaveholders and found a political and economic commonality with the Confederacy.
But their overall significance was minimal. Sure they had political reasons to fight on both sides. The numbers contributing to the overall war did not curve the outcome much.
lol anyone who thinks the south could have won is a redneck
>practically no navy, quickly blockaded
>thousands of miles less railroad track
>1/3rd the white population, slaves were shite
>economy eventually suffered from hyperinflation, devaluation of cotton
>1/6th the industry or something
the confederacy didn't stand a chance, even w lee
when declaring independence you gotta outwait whoever's fucking you
they just didn't have the men to outlast the union
lincoln was too effective a leader and would never have let the confederacy remain
I'd have to agree with you. Initially the idea of "Preservation of the Union" was the initial idea. Once Lincolin tapped into the Abolitionist movement and a few politicians at the time making it a Christian issue as well gave it the moral superiority needed to gain probably a fighting effort from maybe another 2/3 years. Then it ended in 1865.
They served as both Auxiliary when it was more in the Western Theater and as Standard Troops in the more regular Theaters. A few were awarded with well earned Medals of Honor. Not like the Battalion that got it for juts reenlisting.
The main reason was because before the Medal of Honor was enacted to as a Formal Military Award the only other recognition of Military Achievement besides rank was receiving the Certificate of Merit.
I think there's something of a misconception about what the war aims of the south were.
The south was fighting with the sole objective independence. The Confederacy never had to "beat" the North, they didn't have to destroy Union ability to make war like the Union did to the Confederacy. They didn't need the utter defeat of the Union armies either. They didn't need to have regiments marching through Vermont and Massachusetts to achieve their overall strategic aims. These limited war aims offset to some degree the enormous deficiencies in men, money, railroads, arms, manufacturing and just about everything else between Union and Confederacy.
With this in mind the war for the south WAS winnable. Foreign recognition of the Confederacy, which was something France eagerly supported for the resumption of the cotton trade (but wasn't willing to dive into without British cooperation) and also something Britain gave serious consideration could very well have brought the war to an end with an intact Confederacy.
Would the North have ever had the political will to do that though? I suspect they would have cut their losses at some point rather than double down if the Confederates had continued to do well after 1864.
Reminds me, I'm reading Peskin's biography on Garfield and that was something Garfield bitched about stating they should just go in and crush the Rebels instead of pussyfooting around. I'm going to guess that was a pretty common sentiment.
>Did he ever stand a chance of winning?
> Or was the South just too resource poor to win?
Less resource poor and more population and organization poor. This is wartime in a pre-industrial economy. "Resources" and wealth aren't unimportant, but they mean less than they would come the Franco-Prussian war or WW1.
The other major problem was strategic. The CSA was hoping to mimic the American Revolution's success in dealing with Great Britain. Not necessarily winning in a direct, military fashion, but being too expensive and bloody to take out.
And while it might appear reasonable, after all, the CSA is way stronger vis a vis the union than the 13 colonies were vis a vis Britain, it leaves out the much greater balance of commitment the Union had to bring back the south than the UK had to bring back the colonies, as well as the much different logistical picture. Washington and Richmond are what? 90 miles apart, as opposed to across the Atlantic.
One thing I'm curious of is if there's any foreign interest in the U.S. Civil War? Like you get non-English or French who are into the Hundred Years War, non-Europeans who are into the Crusades, non-Japanese who like the Sengoku. But how common is it to see foreigners who are Civil War buffs?
Quite probably there would have been a cease-fire, yes. But then what? You still have enormous agitation for bringing the south back, and pressure will be applied, to McClellan or whomever succeeds him.
How many years do you think the peace will last? 5? 10?
I really don't think you had a long term viable political situation in which the Union is okay with the South going away into their own nation. Even if they lose the historic ACW, say the McClellan wins the election in 1864 and pushes for peace in 1865, you're still almost certainly going to get a war, or numerous wars in the aftermath.
Speaking of japan, there was a significant amount of japanese interest in the civil war as they were preparing for their own. Infact there was one adviser who was with Lee at gettysburg advising against it.
Well I'm OP and I'm British. I've got friends on my history course at uni that are also Civil War buffs. A lot of people in the Anglosphere have American relatives who fought in the Civil War so some of the interest comes though that connection.
What actually got me personally interested was the confederate flag controversy in South Carolina, I thought I should know more about the war before taking the fashionable opinion that most Uni Students hold that the Confederates were led by Satan and the Union were led by the second coming of Christ.
Read The Narrative by Shelby Foote and then Jefferson Davis, American. And I transferred my module to a Civil War one, now it's my favourite period in history.
>its majority was food production as well as textiles
Actually not true. Most of the South was dedicated to cash crops. One of the reasons Lee raided into Northern border states was for foraging off their more abundant farm land.
Why do people act like slavery was a major reason for Europe not getting involved? France was invading Mexico and Britain had its Canadian provinces, helping the confederacy would have put those in danger. Europeans also were able to find alternative cotton sources in Egypt and Asia but still relied on the Union for food. So it was stay out and only suffer cotton shortages during the war or get involved and lose trade with the union while gaining cotton only if the south succeeded.
Think of all the terrible things European empires did during the 19th century, do you really think a little slavery was going to decide their foreign policy?
They almost captured Washington. Of course they could win because they only needed to create a stalemate. Now of course it would only mean another Civil War some time later. Or peaceful unification. It depends. I wonder how long would slavery last in an independent CSA.
They could have won. But the probability of them winning without help from a foreign power in the form of direct military intervention is unlikely. The Union could have kept fighting for a long, long time.
>after decades of obscurity, a meme-flag is repopularized as a symbol for anti-integration and opposition to civil rights
>suddenly it stands for "mah suthurn prahd" with virtually no racist connotations whatsoever and librulz are actually the real racists for claiming otherwise
The actual meme is that it fell into obscurity after the civil war. It was used by southern unites in WW2 and is widely visible in confederate revival meetings in the 19th and 20th century meetings.
The whole 'it didn't exist before integration' line is a myth.
For example note the prominent use of confederate flag in this veterans meeting in the 1930s.
Symbols change retard. You pretty much can't use a swastika anymore outside of Asia because the Nazis tilted it a few degrees. Was it brought back as a symbol of opposition to civil rights? Of course but over the following decades the symbol changed to being a general symbol of southern pride.
I know liberals like to go "HURR DURR HERITAGE NOT HATE" but that's exactly what it became.
>Of course but over the following decades the symbol changed to being a general symbol of southern pride.
I would consider opposition to Civil Rights a key tenant of Southern Pride, and I'm not really convinced that it just magically changed to a totally non-racist symbol just like that. Especially being that so many "Southern Pride" types are unabashed Confederate apologists who still consider Civil Rights an affront to their "way of life"
The problem is that Southern culture in general is closely tide to Blacks and the historical narrative that has been built around Blacks as a foundational pillar of American politics and identity. Southern culture evolved in the context of a racial caste system and was shaped by it in many ways. Now I personally don't think this makes Southern culture inherently bad or totally responsible for Blacks being dysfunctional retards, but it does mean that pretty much anything about Southern culture is going to be triggering to liberals and people educated in liberal school systems because it's too intimately intertwined with American Blacks' unfortunate history. Saying "heritage not hate" is irrelevant to the liberal because in his eyes, your heritage is one of hatred. This is what Southerners fail to understand in their defense of the Confederate flag. It doesn't matter whether it's a symbol of Southern culture or heritage because both of those things are as evil and racist as racism itself.
>repopularized as a symbol for anti-integration and opposition to civil rights
when will this meme die. It's been used since the civil war at parades, football games, concerts etc.
>proud southerners attempt to rationalize the sin of their ancestors
and this makes them bad people? How many Left leaning Americans attempt to excuse Washington and Jefferson for owning and whipping their black slaves?
>How many Left leaning Americans attempt to excuse Washington and Jefferson for owning and whipping their black slaves?
Not many. It's certainly not the right-wing complaining about it.
>Saying "heritage not hate" is irrelevant to the liberal because in his eyes, your heritage is one of hatred.
Yet they weirdly excuse muslims from the atrocities committed by their culture. Let's be honest here, I've lived around liberals in the northeast for most of my life and they just don't like southerners regardless of history. Slavery, racism, and the confederacy is just another albatross they can hang around the necks of a group of people they dislike. No matter the amount of progress the south makes in regards to race relations, liberals will continue to move the goalposts. Nevermind the northeast is the most racially segregated part of the country while the south is the least.
You serious? they constantly whitewash it. I can't remember the last time a prominent person came out declaring our founding fathers to be racists whom we should stop honoring.
If they acknowledge it, they will be certain to note that they were great but imperfect individuals who were products of their time.
Prussia sent over a bunch of military advisers to observe and report on the use of warfare on both sides of the conflict. What they learned they used to beat the Danes, Austrians, and French.
The South had no chance of achieving full military victory over the North with just 2 armies against each other.
the South's main strategy was to make the war so deadly and costly for the North, that they would sue for peace, seeing all the deaths and money spent as not worth it.
The South had the inherent disadvantage in everything that mattered, even in terms of organization, the Confederacy only had 2 months to organize a government, institute law and order across their territory, and build a professional army between their secession and the opening battle of the war, and quite impressively, they did hammer out an effective government and raised an army that could fight for 5 years. To put it simply though, manpower, resources, industry, food supply, clothing, and everything else was difficult for a rebel government to provide towards a war effort.
Davis and Lee probably knew that if the Union was still committed to fighting by 1864, then the CSA was doomed, hence why they tried for more desperate large-scale such as Gettysburg, Chancellorsville, Fredericksburg, and Chickamauga in order to scare the union into backing down with so many casualties.
One of the blatant facts about the American Civil war I find missing from most discussions, especially those held by apologists of the Confederacy, is England's support in terms of arms, resources, funding, and organization of the Confederate Army during the war and any possible motivation behind this support. Are these lines of inquiry abandoned because we sympathies are allied with the South, we have forgotten our national character, or some other reason?
>he future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Missipi States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Missipi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better.
Thomas Jefferson 1803
>“If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative, to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying “let us separate."
Thomas Jefferson 1816
oh no that traitor, better take down the Jefferson monument
The South was far more culturally similar to Britain with it's veneration of aristocratic values and honour. Many British aristocrats, who ran the government at the time, had deep blood and social ties in the South and especially in Virginia. The south was also overwhelming of Anglo-Saxon and Celtic stock whereas the North contained far more European immigrants, so the idea of 'Anglo-Saxon' honour meant that the British elite were far more sympathetic to the CSA than to the USA.
When you have more bodies, you have more bodies to throw at the enemy to win. Gen. Grant's strategy mainly involved brute force rather than superior strategy. Also, Union was the attacking side.
It's only semi-legitimate chance of winning would be turning it into an American Revolution-type situation where the war would just be too costly for the North to want to keep up and for them to decide to just leave the South alone.
In terms of resources the South was vastly outclassed by the North and was only held back by a range of awful-to-mediocre generals; in a war of attrition the North would've won anyway.
And their attempts to get federal aid from Europe would never work, especially since Britain had been playing World Police when it came to slavery and they were already setting up cotton markets in Egypt and India. Moreover, Lincoln declared in no uncertain terms that providing aid to the South would put Britain at war with the Union, and while Britain would certainly win that fight it would be way too costly.
Pretty much this. Like with Vietnam. USA lost with its own media not the actual enemy. Or to be more specific, they lost with the public opinion.
There was also a time where the Northern Army was almost cut off and destroyed and Washington captured. At least one of these events would be enough. So what if the South was poorer or had fewer men than the North. They didn't have to conquer their enemy. So even if the North fought with one arm behind its back it doesn't mean that they had victory in the bag. After all the first phase of the war was a disaster for them with idiots like McClelan and Pope leading the men.
The problem is, to borrow a bit of poli-sci jargon, that the CSA's strategy as such was cocercive, not controlling. They weren't hoping to render the Union unable to conquer them, just unwilling to do so because the costs are too high.
That puts the final call on the Union's side, and not all commitments to war are equal. It's easy to grow weary of a farwaway far to prevent an ideology from spreading to a bunch of places you've never heard of. It's another thing when half of your country is breaking away and forming a state that's hostile to you some 50 miles away from your capital.
Push come to shove, peace with the Union is far less likely than a vietnam-esque scenario. And if peace did come about, it wouldn't likely be a stable peace, the Union would almost certainly attempt to reconquer the south once they felt they could.