Did the South have any chance of victory ?

Did the South have any chance of victory ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865

Message

ezzler -> Did the South have any chance of victory ? (11/7/2006 12:25:07 AM)
Seeing as the world has gone quiet , let's shake up some old chestnuts. recently read a debate from 4 History professors on this subject. " said that the South never had a realistic chance and 2 said that it was a close run thing. The two who said no hope say; The Union could have increased production at least twice as far at any time without any impact on the northern economy The Union had stabilised the currency , while confederate dollars were worth less and less European recognition was never giong to happen The industrial and manpower base of the North could not be defeated by the agricultural south The devisive nature of The Confederation could not unify the country to common shared goals and many more. Further that the idea of a LOST Cause that could have been one came largely after the war , while defeat was widely recognised at the time. Just some points I'm sure you have your own ideas. Personally I tend to look at it like the japenese in WW2. early victories and an ability to defeat the Union's will to continue in a long war through privation and weariness may { just } allow the CSA to prevail. But the odds are long. Discuss......

scout1 -> RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? (11/7/2006 2:35:00 AM)
Depends how one defines victory. If you think of it as chess (where both sides are equal at the start), then no. The South never had a cancce at that kind of victory. But if you think of it as Vietnam, then yes the South did. They had to defeat the will of the North to fight. At this point, they have a victory that they sought, existence. Same was true of the Japanese in WWII. Convince the far more powerful opponent to quit and you win. Give them ANY reason to fight and you are TOAST......

Joram -> RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? (11/7/2006 4:39:05 AM)
I'm only an amateur historian so I'm sure professors would cringe at my logic but since you are simply just trying to strike up a debate, I'd be happy to weigh in with my 2 cents. First I would define Total Victory as the South successfully being recognized by the North as a separate entity. In this regards, I would think that there was almost no chance of victory for the South. The North would never have settled for this unless they were militarily forced to which, given their manpower and production advantages and lack of European help, the chance probably was close to nil. A partial victory would be getting the North to concede more states rights but still all states being part of one union. For that I think there was a much greater chance but a whole host of lucky breaks would have to have rolled the south's way (such as not losing a couple brilliant generals at the beginning). There were too many advantages for the North to make this likely but given the esprit d'corps of the southern troops, and brilliance of some of their generals (at least had they survived) they may have been able to force a political settlement by forcing the fight onto Northern soil and wearing the will down of the North. This may have resulted in enough favorable political capital in Congress to make enough concessions to end the war and preserve the union, albeit in a much different form. Anything less would really not have been a victory for the South. -edit for spelling-

AU Tiger_MatrixForum -> RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? (11/7/2006 5:02:13 AM)
What scout1 was talking about was a POLITICAL victory, not a military one. There was a strong anti-war sentiment in the North during the war that was gaining strength right up until Sherman took Atlanta in '64. From the northern perspective, incredible amounts of casualties and treasure were being thrown away for little apparent gain. Many people wanted simply to end the war and let the South go their own way. Until Atlanta fell, Lincoln had pretty much resigned himself to losing the '64 election to McClellan, the Democratic "peace at any cost" candidate.

pixelpusher -> RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? (11/7/2006 5:08:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joram First I would define Total Victory as the South successfully being recognized by the North as a separate entity. In this regards, I would think that there was almost no chance of victory for the South. Not sure that's a fair premise. In most successful civil wars of partition, the victor/break away state is usually not recognized by the loser / original state. At least usually not for some time if at all. Case in point: Taiwan vs. China, North vs South Korea, Ethiopia vs Eritrea, Cyprus, etc. A better yardstick, IMHO, would be (in order): a) do the separatists perform the essential functions of a government? ie defence, foreign policy, economic policy, public welfare b) is that government recognized by other world governments? c) is that government recogized by the original state? The South Could have gotten there, I think. It's sort of 'Smokey and the Bandit rules': Smokey has to actively win. The Bandit just has to not lose.

RERomine -> RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? (11/7/2006 6:33:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pixelpusher quote: ORIGINAL: Joram First I would define Total Victory as the South successfully being recognized by the North as a separate entity. In this regards, I would think that there was almost no chance of victory for the South. Not sure that's a fair premise. In most successful civil wars of partition, the victor/break away state is usually not recognized by the loser / original state. At least usually not for some time if at all. Case in point: Taiwan vs. China, North vs South Korea, Ethiopia vs Eritrea, Cyprus, etc. A better yardstick, IMHO, would be (in order): a) do the separatists perform the essential functions of a government? ie defence, foreign policy, economic policy, public welfare b) is that government recognized by other world governments? c) is that government recogized by the original state? The South Could have gotten there, I think. It's sort of 'Smokey and the Bandit rules': Smokey has to actively win. The Bandit just has to not lose. I agree. The Confederacy didn't really care if the United States recognized their independence or not, as long as they left them alone. They didn't have to subjegate the Union to accomplish that. Just had to hold out and make it look like they could do so longer than the North was willing to fight. Had McClellan won the election in 1864, the Confederacy would likely have achieved what they desired. By that time, however, the tide of the war had decisively turn against them and Lincoln won. But all of this is based on hindsight. In 1861, if they had known all they had to do was outlast the Union, they might have approached it differently. Early on, everyone figured just capture the opposing capital and the war would be over. Later, it was figure just destroy the opposing army. I'm not sure the Confederacy had the military resources to do either. The Confederacy also figured the could win if they were recognized by France and/or England. Too much stock was was put in that notion. They certainly had the ability to outlast the Union, however, but this approach was never tried. All it takes is one possibility to say they had a chance. Many things undermined the Confederacy's ability to win. One thing that killed them was the very thing they seceded for, States Rights. While the states in the South cooperated to some extent, they often did things that hindered the war effort. Not enough was done to put an end to profiteering by private blockade runners. There was no military general put in overall command of all the armies of the Confederacy. Jefferson Davis reserved this role for himself. Too much for the president of a fledgeling nation to handle. In spite of this, they really came close.

Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? (11/7/2006 8:48:12 AM)
There are several things that amaze me on reading about the war. 1. That the CSA managed to make a fight of it for four years despite crippling disadvantages of various kinds, and despite having basically lost the war in the West in the first year. It was an unequal struggle, and in the East it seemed to be prolonged mainly because US forces were poorly led. With equally good generalship on both sides, I doubt that the CSA could have survived as long as four years. 2. That the CSA fought well enough in the East, despite its disadvantages, to bring the USA several times almost to the point of giving up the struggle -- which would have enabled the CSA to survive and win the game. Thus, a simulation that takes into account the quality of the generals on each side should give the CSA a chance of winning. I still think the chance would be less than 50%. After all, in reality it fought well but still lost. 3. That either side thought it was worth so much suffering, death, and destruction merely to decide whether the southern states should have one government or another quite similar government. Admittedly, the two possible governments differed over the issue of slavery; however, had they but known it, the days of slavery were numbered, come what may. An independent CSA could surely have preserved the institution for no more than another generation -- during which fugitive slaves would have leaked constantly into the USA. I can't imagine that the US fugitive slave law would have remained in force. I quote Edward Alexander Porter, from the first chapter of Military Memoirs of a Confederate. The year is 1858: "... we learned that the 'Mormon War' was over. Brigham Young, on seeing the large force prepared to install his rival, Gov. Cumming, had wisely concluded to submit and forego his dream of independence. Perhaps he was the wisest leader of a people seeking freedom, of all his generation. At first, the Mormons deserted their homes, and proposed to burn them and migrate to Mexico. Neither Confederate nor Boer was more devoted to his cause than the Mormons to their own. But Brigham Young knew when the time to surrender had come, and he deserves a monument for knowing it and acting upon the knowledge; even though by doing so he greatly disappointed many young officers, myself amongst them, anxious to see active service." I'm not suggesting simply that the CSA was to blame for not surrendering immediately. That would have been one way to avoid the war; another way would have been for the USA to refrain from military invasion (an extraordinary act for a government supposedly pledged to derive its "just powers from the consent of the governed"). The CSA was, however, unwise to fire the first shots. It could easily have ignored provocations such as Fort Sumter, and should have done so. That incident seems to have been caused by a lack of discipline on both sides.

Twotribes -> RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? (11/7/2006 3:43:33 PM)
If South Carolina could have stopped the hot heads from attacking Sumnter there is a doubt that without a shooting war, Lincoln could have drummed up the support to fight the Confederacy. If the south had not tried to force Europe to help it by refusing to sell cotton in the first year, before the blockade was effective, they could have purchased a LOT of material, weapons and manufacturing capability from Europe. If the South could have divorced itself from slavery there would have been no war or the Europeans would ahve been much easier to convince to help. The North had little stomach for the carnage and politically would have given up the shooting war except for some timely victories.

Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? (11/7/2006 5:22:09 PM)
Yes, the cotton export ban was a very bad decision (with hindsight). I suppose every game on the subject assumes that decision cancelled in order to give the CSA a better chance and balance the game better. In fact, now you mention it, I suppose that the cancelling of that decision might give the CSA enough of a boost to balance the game properly and give it a 50% chance of winning. But I think there was no chance of the South "divorcing itself from slavery" in 1861: it was emotionally, socially, and economically committed to slavery, and slavery seems to have been the main reason for secession, though as usual there were other lesser reasons. If the South had abolished slavery all by itself -- which seems inconceivable -- I doubt that it would have been sufficiently motivated to secede.

RERomine -> RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? (11/7/2006 5:29:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Twotribes If South Carolina could have stopped the hot heads from attacking Sumnter there is a doubt that without a shooting war, Lincoln could have drummed up the support to fight the Confederacy. This is certainly correct, but it's difficult to speculate what would have happened had South Carolina just waited. As I recall, Union ships arrived during the bombardment and could have reinforced and/or resupplied Ft. Sumter. If the bombardment hadn't started, it is doubtful South Carolina would have allowed the ships to enter the harbor. They proved that when the fired on the Star of the West earlier in the year. But if they had just ignored the existence of Ft. Sumter, it would have been interesting to see how Lincoln would have reacted. quote: If the south had not tried to force Europe to help it by refusing to sell cotton in the first year, before the blockade was effective, they could have purchased a LOT of material, weapons and manufacturing capability from Europe. Also quite true and is arguably their biggest error. Nothing makes fewer friends than coersion. I'm sure the Confederacy didn't expect Egyptian cotton was an option, but they made it that way. Plus, I think bumper crops of Egyptian cotton was available at the time. Bad timing to say the least, but the overall plan wasn't good. quote: If the South could have divorced itself from slavery there would have been no war or the Europeans would ahve been much easier to convince to help. Isn't this like saying there isn't a war, 'cept for the fighting? Slavery was the issue. Left alone, it would have undoubtably faded away on it's own like it did in the rest of the world. What might have worked too was for the government to just buy all of the slaves. Been much cheaper than the war ended up being. Benefit of hindsight. Much is made of the State's Rights concept, but I believe most of that was to gloss over the main right being protected was slavery. Protection of slavery can be found in the ordinace of secession of many states. Southern politicians where smart enough to know they weren't going to get many men to defend slavery so it was wrapped up in the State's Right motto. quote: The North had little stomach for the carnage and politically would have given up the shooting war except for some timely victories. Not much the South could do about that. Just the way it worked out. I'm sure they went in to win every battle.

ezzler -> RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? (11/7/2006 10:20:06 PM)
It wasn't so much the Egyptian cotton as the overproduction of 1860 and an overabundance of cotton in Europe in general after the scare of 1859 that had led to a glut of cotton.Many mills were on short time due to falling textile prices rather than lack of raw cotton. That King Cotton strategy was poorly conceived and a bit wishful thinking. As mentioned before better to sell the Cotton to Europe for trade and goods in 1861 and then replant many plantations with foodstuffs to support the country from then on. All this assumes States co-operation , Landowners and the wealthy classes following government strategy and marginalising profits and a strategic vision, something we would be hard pressed to do today , never mind 1860's. Seems few people have hopes for The Southern independence....

RERomine -> RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? (11/7/2006 10:34:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ezz It wasn't so much the Egyptian cotton as the overproduction of 1860 and an overabundance of cotton in Europe in general after the scare of 1859 that had led to a glut of cotton.Many mills were on short time due to falling textile prices rather than lack of raw cotton. That King Cotton strategy was poorly conceived and a bit wishful thinking. This is true. There was a lot of cotton sitting in English warehouses early on. They also did look for alternate sources of cotton as well. That's where the Egyptian cotton came in. It wasn't as good as the cotton in the South, but it was better than nothing. Overall, withholding cotton wasn't a good strategy. One can't bully another into helping them, but that's the Confederacy tried. They ended up shooting themselves in the foot.

spruce -> RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? (11/7/2006 11:34:07 PM)
intresting things to notice about King Cotton strategy ... but the reality was that King Cotton was�more a�political tool - not an economical one. And basicly it backfired ... For starters - the Confederacy was hoping to become "prefered supplier" to the UK or at least show how good they would be as a passionate lover�once getting married with. Now - first playing hard to get ... [:D] and then trying to convince the other that one can't live with the other ... it smells politics ... But problem was this policy backfired - first of all - cotton was not that scarce anymore when the civil war kicked in. More and more Europeans�growing their�consciousness about the slavery issue. IIRC there's a story of British textile labourmen supporting the Northern cause against slavery - due out of solidarity with the hard working suppressed class. If labourmen and businessmen won't lose their job�and�earnings in the textile�business - politicians will play the political violin against the South. Also the North had ties - both political and economical with the UK and European powers. It's just a dangerous game throwing these things in the balance - as the South.

Twotribes -> RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? (11/9/2006 12:10:02 AM)
Well you will find if you make the claim that the major cause of the war was slavery you will have a LOT of revisionists in the US claiming it simply was not so, so that last part about divorcing themselves from it is a bit of a dig on the line one gets feed by these people that slavery was just a bit player to the bigger issue of States rights ( ignoring of course the major State right being fought for was slavery) As has been pointed out it appears a much NOBLIER cause if one can just proclaim the war was all about States Rights then if one admits to the SPECIFIC right they mean.

Missouri_Rebel -> RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? (11/9/2006 12:46:08 AM)
spoken like a true transplanted yankee. Yes you are right..it was about slavery... and the states have been a slave to the federal gubament since. Funny how Grant never thought it to be over slavery and Lincoln admitted it wasn't and said that to pretend so would not only hurt the cause but also smack of bad faith. Was slavery the issue as to why the south left? Yes, but it was the right to secede that the war was fought over. BTW...if you need some driving lessons let me help...turn that hybrid car north and gas it. :) mo reb

RERomine -> RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? (11/9/2006 3:07:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel spoken like a true transplanted yankee. Yes you are right..it was about slavery... and the states have been a slave to the federal gubament since. Funny how Grant never thought it to be over slavery and Lincoln admitted it wasn't and said that to pretend so would not only hurt the cause but also smack of bad faith. Was slavery the issue as to why the south left yes, but it was the right to secede that the war was fought over. BTW...if you need some driving lessons let me help...turn that hybrid car north and gas it. :) mo reb Actually, there is an interesting point there. The root cause was slavery. How Grant or Lincoln felt about it doesn't matter. The deep South seceded before Lincoln was sworn in. Slavery was referenced in the ordinance of secession for most if not all of those states. The remaining states (Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas and Tennessee) seceded after Ft. Sumter, when Lincoln issue the call for 75,000 volunteers. It could be said they were fighting for the right to secede.

Joram -> RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? (11/9/2006 4:14:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pixelpusher quote: ORIGINAL: Joram First I would define Total Victory as the South successfully being recognized by the North as a separate entity. In this regards, I would think that there was almost no chance of victory for the South. Not sure that's a fair premise. In most successful civil wars of partition, the victor/break away state is usually not recognized by the loser / original state. At least usually not for some time if at all. Case in point: Taiwan vs. China, North vs South Korea, Ethiopia vs Eritrea, Cyprus, etc. A better yardstick, IMHO, would be (in order): a) do the separatists perform the essential functions of a government? ie defence, foreign policy, economic policy, public welfare b) is that government recognized by other world governments? c) is that government recogized by the original state? The South Could have gotten there, I think. It's sort of 'Smokey and the Bandit rules': Smokey has to actively win. The Bandit just has to not lose. Good points! I was defining it from my perspective, not theirs which is an error on my part.

Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? (11/9/2006 7:28:44 AM)
As I see it, slavery was the main reason for secession -- at least for the original seven states. But the war was fought over the right to secede. I don't suppose many people on either side deliberately risked their lives for or against slavery: it was the question of sovereignty that they were vitally interested in. Hypothetically, if the southern states had seceded for some reason other than slavery, there would have been war just the same. Lincoln wasn't fond of slavery, but he went to war to 'preserve the Union', not to defeat slavery.

Twotribes -> RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? (11/9/2006 8:49:10 AM)
Simply Semantics. No other issue between North and South was serious enough to have ever caused those States to try and leave the Union. NOTHING in the election of Lincoln threatened the South EXCEPT the propsect of a President willing to try and get Congress to change the requirement that more Slave States be admitted. As has been pointed out the original States leaving ALL listed as the reason SLAVERY. The last batch simply didnt fall for that obvious mistake, but even they left for the same reason. There is no listed inherient right in the Constitution that allows a State to leave the Union. In fact one could argue that Any State created AFTER the acceptance of said Constitution ( except Texas) exsisted only because the Federal Government allowed them to lay claim to Federal land. Tennessee, Kentucky and Alabama might have had the arguement they were originally owned by the states east of them, but that would be a stretch, those States gave up claim to the land to the Federal Government. The Original States have a weak claim to the right to leave the Union also. The Constitution, which Establishes the Country and the rights. privaleges and powers of the Entities in the Union does NOT address any possiblity of leaving once ratified. The States agreed to become members of a Union that SPECIFICALLY created a Central Government that Superceded the free and total exercise of States Governments. They agreed to be bound into a system that made them a lesser entity that had to aquiesece to the Federal Government on Numerous points and the document CLEARLY states that the Federal Government supercedes ANY State law , right or privalege with in the scope of the powers granted to the Federal Government. The biggest powers being the right to control all treaties and conduct of all Foreign interaction with any other country. Also the right to intervene in any State that failed to obey the laws and controls established under the Constitution. They also had to relinquish to the Federal Government a portion of any Militia they formed at the demand of the Federal Government. What they got in exchange was a Union of States where in the people of ALL states elected the House of Representatives and the State Governments elected the Senate. The President was elected by a system that while using the popular vote was semi divorced from that, placing in the States and Congress the power to elect electors to select each president. There was not then and is not now ANY clause or arrangement for member States admitted into said Union, to pick up their ball and go away cause the majority of States disagreed with any specific State on how other States would be admitted into the Union and on how a super majority of States could amend the Constitution. It was the Duty and responsibility of Lincoln to attempt by any means to maintain the cohesion of the United States. But even then he had to rely solely on the willingness of the remaining States to provide him the power to do so. The term that applies to the States leaving the Union is of Course treason, as stipulated in the Constitution. The act of attempting to leave the Union by any and all State or local Governmentsis clearly an act of Treason as defined in the Constitution. The only legal recourse the Southern States had was to create and pass an amendment to the Constitution that would have allowed them to leave said Union.

Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? (11/9/2006 9:16:27 AM)
As I'm neither a lawyer nor an American, I'm not in a good position to debate American constitutional law, and I won't attempt to do so. I point out that no alliance of any kind is going to exist until the end of time. If there's no provision for a country to split up in an orderly way, it just means that the split (whenever it comes) is likely to be messy. And indeed the attempt to split the USA in 1861 turned out very messy. On the subject of morality (which is distinct from legality), I believe the US declaration of independence got it right. Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. If they lose that consent, they have no moral right to govern -- regardless of laws or constitutions. Similarly, although slavery was certainly legal and constitutional in the USA in 1861, by our modern standards it's immoral whether it's legal or not.

Syagrius -> RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? (11/9/2006 4:34:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey As I see it, slavery was the main reason for secession -- at least for the original seven states. But the war was fought over the right to secede. I don't suppose many people on either side deliberately risked their lives for or against slavery: it was the question of sovereignty that they were vitally interested in. Hypothetically, if the southern states had seceded for some reason other than slavery, there would have been war just the same. Lincoln wasn't fond of slavery, but he went to war to 'preserve the Union', not to defeat slavery. I agree. In fact, Lincoln didnt had the black people in his heart..he emancipated them because it served the Union cause, nothing more.

RERomine -> RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? (11/9/2006 4:41:55 PM)
Twotribes brings up a very interesting point about the legality of secession. That legality hasn't really be determined. Seems to me it is a Constitutional issue which falls in the perview of the Supreme Court. The problem is the southern states didn't take the procedural route in leaving the Union. It's hard to figure how they would have ruled if the case had been brought before them. When secession took place in late 1860, there were only eight Supreme Court justices, one having died or retired in May, 1860 and not replaced until January, 1862. Of the remaining justices, four were from the North (ME, PA, NY, OH), three from the South (TN, GA, AL) and the chief justice was from a border state (MD). Of the justices from the South, only J. A. Campbell clearly went South when the war started. J. Catron of Tennessee may have as well. Justice J. M. Wayne of Georia seemed to remain with the Union. Just from looking at where they were from, it isn't impossible to see the decision being split, 4 to 4. It is possible that Justice Wayne may have sided with the Union view and declared secession illegal. This is only speculation on my part. If they were capable of putting emotions aside and decide it based on legal merits, it could have gone either way.

RERomine -> RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? (11/9/2006 4:58:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Syagrius quote: ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey As I see it, slavery was the main reason for secession -- at least for the original seven states. But the war was fought over the right to secede. I don't suppose many people on either side deliberately risked their lives for or against slavery: it was the question of sovereignty that they were vitally interested in. Hypothetically, if the southern states had seceded for some reason other than slavery, there would have been war just the same. Lincoln wasn't fond of slavery, but he went to war to 'preserve the Union', not to defeat slavery. I agree. In fact, Lincoln didnt had the black people in his heart..he emancipated them because it served the Union cause, nothing more. From the Union perspective, the war was fought because it was believed secession was illegal. One has to dig to the very bottom of the hole to get to the root cause and at the bottle, it was slavery. While it is true the North would have fought to preserve the Union, no matter why the Southern states seceded, the Southern states wouldn't have seceded if they didn't feel slavery was threatened. Lincoln never claimed to be concerned about anything but preserving the Union: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."

Mike Scholl -> RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? (11/9/2006 6:30:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey Yes, the cotton export ban was a very bad decision (with hindsight). I suppose every game on the subject assumes that decision cancelled in order to give the CSA a better chance and balance the game better. In fact, now you mention it, I suppose that the cancelling of that decision might give the CSA enough of a boost to balance the game properly and give it a 50% chance of winning. But I think there was no chance of the South "divorcing itself from slavery" in 1861: it was emotionally, socially, and economically committed to slavery, and slavery seems to have been the main reason for secession, though as usual there were other lesser reasons. If the South had abolished slavery all by itself -- which seems inconceivable -- I doubt that it would have been sufficiently motivated to secede. I'd agree with this analysis..., but the South missed a MAJOR opportunity to win the war through propaganda. Most Union troops "joined up" to "Preserve the Union"---"Abolition of Slavery" was the prime motivator in less than half (mostly from the North East.). Had the South pushed the idea that the War was really about "freeing the slaves", and that once freed, they would all hurry north to be with the folks who freed them (coincidentaly taking all the low-skill jobs that the Union soldiers had left to enlist because they were willing to work cheaper), things might have been different. Put into this "light", a couple of defeats and the worry about what several million newly freed Blacks might due to their post-war economic future could very well have lead to major dissertion and morale problems in the Union armies. Even more than a Joseph Johnston, the South needed a Joseph Goebles...

Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? (11/9/2006 8:20:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl Had the South pushed the idea that the War was really about "freeing the slaves", and that once freed, they would all hurry north to be with the folks who freed them (coincidentaly taking all the low-skill jobs that the Union soldiers had left to enlist because they were willing to work cheaper), things might have been different. Put into this "light", a couple of defeats and the worry about what several million newly freed Blacks might due to their post-war economic future could very well have lead to major dissertion and morale problems in the Union armies. Even more than a Joseph Johnston, the South needed a Joseph Goebles... An interesting idea, but I suspect that Confederates weren't in the right frame of mind to think of it, or to use it if it had been suggested to them. They initially reckoned that those people from the North would taste Southern steel and that would be that. Talking about the consequences of freeing the slaves would have been to admit the unthinkable possibility of military defeat. I think your idea would have been too far ahead of its time in the 1860s.

RERomine -> RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? (11/9/2006 8:56:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey An interesting idea, but I suspect that Confederates weren't in the right frame of mind to think of it, or to use it if it had been suggested to them. They initially reckoned that those people from the North would taste Southern steel and that would be that. Talking about the consequences of freeing the slaves would have been to admit the unthinkable possibility of military defeat. I think your idea would have been too far ahead of its time in the 1860s. Cleburne suggested something along the lines of freeing slaves who fought for the Confederacy in 1864 and it wasn't really well received then, either. Just not a path they were willing to go down. 1861 or 1864, it was pretty much admitting defeat. In general, I believe the Confederacy could have won if they had made the correct decisions. It fits the qualification of "any chance of victory".

Mike Scholl -> RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? (11/9/2006 9:10:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl Had the South pushed the idea that the War was really about "freeing the slaves", and that once freed, they would all hurry north to be with the folks who freed them (coincidentaly taking all the low-skill jobs that the Union soldiers had left to enlist because they were willing to work cheaper), things might have been different. Put into this "light", a couple of defeats and the worry about what several million newly freed Blacks might due to their post-war economic future could very well have lead to major dissertion and morale problems in the Union armies. Even more than a Joseph Johnston, the South needed a Joseph Goebles... An interesting idea, but I suspect that Confederates weren't in the right frame of mind to think of it, or to use it if it had been suggested to them. They initially reckoned that those people from the North would taste Southern steel and that would be that. Talking about the consequences of freeing the slaves would have been to admit the unthinkable possibility of military defeat. I think your idea would have been too far ahead of its time in the 1860s. You're undoubtedly correct that such a "propaganda ploy" was beyond the South of the 1860's. I suggested it simply because the discussion was about "COULD the South have won?". I thought this up years ago, and have yet to see as of this day a good explanation as to why it wouldn't work...., IF the South had been of a mind to try it. Thought I'd offer it up for comment on this forum due to the obvious interests of the participants.

Twotribes -> RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? (11/9/2006 11:34:16 PM)
The South could have "won" by not firing on the North. There is strong reason to believe had the States leaving the Union not forced the Issue, the Northern States would not have easily raised armies and become the aggressors in the war. Lincoln was saved a LOT of headaches by the South firing on the North. Another misconception foisted on the current and future generations is the idea that Lincoln and the North were hot for war and were the instigators of a shooting war. I do so love the refrain it was fought over States Rights but not Slavery. The sole State right that was viewed as "in" jeapordy WAS Slavery. And on that point the South was mistaken in many regards. The South was more guilty of violating Northern State rights then vis a versu. The South used the Courts and the Federal Government to force the Northern States into enforcing slavery laws in those States for "run aways" and tried to force the right of kidnapping free blacks from Northern States and selling them as slaves in the South on the claim that since they had no papers proving they were free, they were in fact slaves. The Constitution is clear that the rights, privaleges and safeguards of a citizen in one State can not be violated in another State. yet the South ( slave states) did kidnap any non slave black that ventured into the South with out papers proving they were free men. They even tried to do the same in Northern States. The Courts and the federal Government officially agreed with and officially attempted to enforce Southern Slave laws in the North, any run away legally was to be returned to his master or the State he escaped from if captured anywhere in the US. The South didnt like Lincoln but had no "state right" to claim was violated solely by his election to the Presidency. Even if the mythical right to leave the Union exsisted, the South had no cause when they left to do so.

Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? (11/10/2006 12:48:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Twotribes The South could have "won" by not firing on the North. Yes, this is a possibility and has been mentioned several times already on this forum, although it's impossible to prove. Firing on Fort Sumter was one of the Confederates' big mistakes. quote: ORIGINAL: Twotribes I do so love the refrain it was fought over States Rights but not Slavery. The sole State right that was viewed as "in" jeapordy WAS Slavery. Yes, but this doesn't alter the fact that (a) most Confederate soldiers weren't even slaveowners and had no motive to fight for slavery; they fought to defend themselves from invasion; and (b) many Union soldiers had little or no interest in freeing the slaves and wouldn't have been willing to fight for that cause; they fought to stop their country from splitting. This is what I understand from what I've read, anyway; none of us were there. quote: ORIGINAL: Twotribes The South was more guilty of violating Northern State rights then vis a versu. The South used the Courts and the Federal Government to force the Northern States into enforcing slavery laws in those States for "run aways" and tried to force the right of kidnapping free blacks from Northern States and selling them as slaves in the South on the claim that since they had no papers proving they were free, they were in fact slaves. The Constitution is clear that the rights, privaleges and safeguards of a citizen in one State can not be violated in another State. yet the South ( slave states) did kidnap any non slave black that ventured into the South with out papers proving they were free men. They even tried to do the same in Northern States. The Courts and the federal Government officially agreed with and officially attempted to enforce Southern Slave laws in the North, any run away legally was to be returned to his master or the State he escaped from if captured anywhere in the US. I agree with all this. It all follows fairly logically from the fact that many Southerners saw black people as cattle and not as citizens. This is of course a thoroughly unattractive point of view, but it was their point of view. As for using the federal government to enforce Southern laws in Northern states, this was an abuse and the federal government shouldn't have gone along with it. quote: ORIGINAL: Twotribes The South didnt like Lincoln but had no "state right" to claim was violated solely by his election to the Presidency. Even if the mythical right to leave the Union exsisted, the South had no cause when they left to do so. If you want to resign your membership of a club, you don't need to give a reason. Just wanting to leave should be enough.

anarchyintheuk -> RE: Did the South have any chance of victory ? (11/10/2006 12:56:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl Had the South pushed the idea that the War was really about "freeing the slaves", and that once freed, they would all hurry north to be with the folks who freed them (coincidentaly taking all the low-skill jobs that the Union soldiers had left to enlist because they were willing to work cheaper), things might have been different. Put into this "light", a couple of defeats and the worry about what several million newly freed Blacks might due to their post-war economic future could very well have lead to major dissertion and morale problems in the Union armies. Even more than a Joseph Johnston, the South needed a Joseph Goebles... An interesting idea, but I suspect that Confederates weren't in the right frame of mind to think of it, or to use it if it had been suggested to them. They initially reckoned that those people from the North would taste Southern steel and that would be that. Talking about the consequences of freeing the slaves would have been to admit the unthinkable possibility of military defeat. I think your idea would have been too far ahead of its time in the 1860s. You're undoubtedly correct that such a "propaganda ploy" was beyond the South of the 1860's. I suggested it simply because the discussion was about "COULD the South have won?". I thought this up years ago, and have yet to see as of this day a good explanation as to why it wouldn't work...., IF the South had been of a mind to try it. Thought I'd offer it up for comment on this forum due to the obvious interests of the participants. The flip side of that propaganda ploy is also true. Would Southerners really prefer to fight for their right to enslave others or for the more preferable fiction of "states rights"?

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.65625