Civil War History - "What if..." DiscussionsWhat if they had attacked instead of digging in...? What if he was in charge of the army instead...? Did you ever have a "What if..." question, and you weren't sure where to post it? Here's the place to ask these speculative questions!
The problem is the Confederate States would have had to severely compromise its own intents at the start of the war.
By 1863, it had already lost much of its territory, or at least the territory it wanted in 1861.
By then it had strategically lost Kentucky, Maryland, most of Tennessee, Missouri, Arkansas, parts of Louisiana, oceanside parts of Georgia, oceanside parts of South Carolina, western Virginia,and any hope of obtaining the New Mexico territories.
The Confederacy would have had Texas, parts of Louisiana without New Orleans, some of Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, most of South Carolina, perhaps part of North Carolina, and parts of Virginia. Now that would have been a poison pill to swallow.
By secession, Virginia had strategically lost counties near Washington, D.C. and most of the counties west of the Allegheny Mountains.
The brilliant Virginians had stepped into a vast hole, they never got out of at any time.
The economic benefits of slavery would have been lost, as many areas, kept by the U.S. in the South, would have been excluded from slavery. Southern slaveholders would have less areas to sell excess slaves, and subsequently, reducing the overall value of slaves.
By early 1863, any astute observer would have realized that the Confederacy had opened a "can of worms" that should have remained shut.
The U.S. was spending billions to support the war; an amount the Confederacy could not match.
What states would have been part of that independence? All the states and territory that the Confederacy originally desired?
Weren't there some states, that the Confederacy lost as early as 1862, and never regained any control over?
Memphis and New Orleans were lost by the Confederacy in 1862, and never regained. Would these cities have been part of a Confederacy, and why would that be?
The Mississippi River was virtually lost to the U.S. by 1862.
How would the Confederacy force the U.S. to give up control of the Mississippi River, when it was lost as early as 1862, for the most part?
I think if the south would have won the war the north and the south would almost allways be fighting. I think that it might not have lasted very long as two seperate countries. Thanks,Jacob
"As far as the victorious Confederacy falling apart, you could have made the same prediction about the 13 states after they won independence from Britain. I bet the CSA could have hammered out a feasible nation, given the looming threat of the United States."
The Confederacy seceded with eyes too big for their stomach. Never 13 states, represented by the 13 stars in its battle flag. How would they control Missouri and Kentucky? How would they demand inclusion of those states in their confederacy? St. Louis was lost on the first day of the war. Kentucky never really seceded. Plus how could the Confederacy claim all of the land in Kentucky, except by fighting for it. Which they did and lost.
The Confederacy would have wanted U.S. Territories, so it would have started a war to get that land by invasion.
The Confederacy never had the economy to control so much territory. What it wanted in territory, it could not defend entirely. In the end, the Confederacy could defend none of it.
The Confederacy never had the economy to control so much territory. What it wanted in territory, it could not defend entirely. In the end, the Confederacy could defend none of it.
Which comes back to the point, Whitworth, why?
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
"...it would hardly be possible to imagine a great maritime country more destitute of the means for carrying on a naval war than the Confederate States in 1861."
A Naval Historian
It certainly wasn't because they had the means to sustain a long war. And if they thought it meant no war, or a short war, the Confederate foresight did not reach beyond their nose.
"...it would hardly be possible to imagine a great maritime country more destitute of the means for carrying on a naval war than the Confederate States in 1861."
A Naval Historian
It certainly wasn't because they had the means to sustain a long war. And if they thought it meant no war, or a short war, the Confederate foresight did not reach beyond their nose.
Why? Frustration brought about by an inactive and confused politically correct Congress.
Sound familiar?
No leader, and certainly Davis was less than adequate for the task, in his right mind would have started a war against the US with so little logistical support. Maybe the Confederates didn't realize the war would last so long, or maybe communication and analysis were so bad that the meager southern arsenals were thought to be far more productive than they proved to be. Many accounts and opinions have been expressed that a quick victory was anticipated and perhaps possible, at least for several months into the conflict. There is some consolation, not much, in the fact that our country was able to drag this thing out for four years. A lesser nation would have wrapped up the proceedings in far less time. We're a hard-headed, determined bunch when the brawl gets out of hand. Ask the Germans or Japs.
__________________
Ancestors in US Army: 13th TN Cav; 10th TN Cav; 3rd NC Inf
Ancestors in CSA Army: 48th VA; 63rd VA, 5th NC Cav; 37th NC
Wife and Grandson's CSA: 15th AL, 51st GA, 41st TN; 36th TN; GA Mil 1197 Dist
Maybe. I think their best bet was that the North would not find it productive to keep the Union intact. Frankly this almost worked.
They apparently did not appreciate the fact that most of the North did believe in the precepts of the Constitution and would fight for the principle of a government of the people as opposed to a government of elites.
__________________
-
"It was a very peculiar time." - Franklin D. Cossitt
Ancestors in USA Army: 6th IA Inf, 11th IL Cav, 1st AL Cav; 122nd NY Inf; 6th MI Cav; 35th MA Inf; 100th IL Inf; 1st CO Inf/Cav; 22nd IN Inf
Even if the CSA won the war, I'm not sure if it could have lasted long before becoming a second rate country. (Yes, I'm a Southerner saying this.)
An agriculural economy could not last too long in the face of massive industrialization.
The issue of slavery would still be a sticking point, that is, if the institution still existed.
In giving aid to the CSA, nations like France and England whoul have some influence in the CS internal affairs.
The very system of the Confederacy worked against having a unified economic or foreign policy.
The country would either have fallen apart, or unified under a totaltarian regime (ala Harry Turtledove).
I don'e believe that the CSA would have succeeded. The CSA was doomed from the time of the firing on Ft Sumter. It was only a matter of time when the Union got its act together.
__________________ F. S. Powers
Union Ancersor: Pvt Arnuah Norton, 60th Ohio. (G-G-G Grandfather) Died at Salisbury NC, November 3, 1864
Confederate Ancestors: Captain Thomas A. Morrow, 29th Texas Cavalry (G-G-G- Uncle) and 2LT George W. Morrow, 31st Texas Cavalry (G-G-G Grandfather). Both survived the war
I don'e believe that the CSA would have succeeded. The CSA was doomed from the time of the firing on Ft Sumter. It was only a matter of time when the Union got its act together.
Amen. The divisiveness shown by secession would not have ended there. The first time the CSA government made a rule that, say, Texas didn't like -- goodbye Texas. Or any other state for that matter. Louisiana had New Orleans and plenty of independence. Goodbye, Louisiana.
ole
T
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
If... 
Linear Mode
