Could the South have won the Civil War?

Could the South have won the Civil War

  • Yes

    Votes: 46 59.0%
  • No

    Votes: 32 41.0%

  • Total voters
    78

SouthernRebel772

Sergeant
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Location
USMC
Just a straitforward question, do you think it was possible for the South to have won the civil war wether through military or political meens? Or, come to a truce, armistice, or truly anything that might have resulted in southern independence, on a large or limited scale?
 
While I voted "yes", it would've been extremely unlikely. Outright winning wasn't really achievable, but not-losing was within reach. It was possible to wage a defensive only war and last long enough to force a peace of sorts. Probably would've needed another 4 years though.
My $0.02
 
Very possible. Some "close calls"
1) without Lincoln. Like him or not, he kept things wrapped together up north and under a less effective administrator it surely would have unwound.
2) A southern loss at 1st Bull Run. Impact: North thinks the war will be over in 6 weeks and doesn't get the scare in 'em, south resets its agenda and comes on much much stronger in the back half of '61 - with severe consequences
3) AS Johnston lives/wins, and Grant loses an army at Shiloh. Buell was too far away or whatever cause, the net effect is that Grant never holds another command.
4) Hooker stayed in command and totally misses the Confederate advance into Pennsylvania.
5) the Napoleon scenario, where a previously unknown emerges as the Cromwell of the war. This is always a possibility when one calls to Mars in order to solve a problem, and maybe we should all breath a quiet sigh of gratitude this did not happen.

There were a couple other possibilities, but these seem least far fetched.
 
No. While I do not feel that slavery was the reason for fighting, it was certainly one of the most important reasons. In the Constitution of the CSA it was illegal to do away with slavery. As long as any country insists on keeping slavery they cannot progress and always die a slow death, some faster than others, but dead none-the-less.
 
Its not an impossibility but its a very long shot. They would need a better President than Davis would could keep the country unified regardless of whatever personal and political quarrels the politicians and generals had with each other and they would need a lot more luck and skill on the field of battle than they had in OTL.
 
Very possible. Some "close calls"
1) without Lincoln. Like him or not, he kept things wrapped together up north and under a less effective administrator it surely would have unwound.
2) A southern loss at 1st Bull Run. Impact: North thinks the war will be over in 6 weeks and doesn't get the scare in 'em, south resets its agenda and comes on much much stronger in the back half of '61 - with severe consequences
3) AS Johnston lives/wins, and Grant loses an army at Shiloh. Buell was too far away or whatever cause, the net effect is that Grant never holds another command.
4) Hooker stayed in command and totally misses the Confederate advance into Pennsylvania.
5) the Napoleon scenario, where a previously unknown emerges as the Cromwell of the war. This is always a possibility when one calls to Mars in order to solve a problem, and maybe we should all breath a quiet sigh of gratitude this did not happen.

There were a couple other possibilities, but these seem least far fetched.

Number one is the key. Confederate victory on the battlefield was always a long-shot to begin with, but so long as Lincoln lead the Northern cause Confederate victory was impossible.
 
I don't believe so, they (the Confederacy) didn't have the manpower, the ability to easily move supplies, or the industry to keep up. Essentially it was a war of attrition that they had no chance of winning. That being said, they did more than could have been expected with what they had available to them.
 
Yes, before the war started. If Butler's suggestion of arresting the peace commissioners from South Carolina for treason had been followed by Buchanan, the issue of the legality of secession would have been resolved in court. It may well have gone in favor of the South.

On the battlefield, their best bet was keeping Fts Henry and Donelson. Once those forts fell to Union forces, it went like dominoes in the West and that is where the war was really lost. Union control of the major waterways into the Southern heartland caused the Confederacy to be split in half, and split in half again later. It also placed the key state of Kentucky irretrievably out of reach, and any possibility of taking the war to Ohio or Illinois - there was considerable Confederate sympathy in southern Indiana and Illinois that was sealed off after these forts fell. Also, the need for a navy was never much recognized by Davis, unfortunately, and that lack made it nearly impossible for the Confederacy to regain control of waterways and ports, or break the Union blockade.
 
Short answer is of course they could have won. Anybody can be had given the right circunstances. There are probably hundreds of scenarios in which the south could have pulled it off though most of them go by the board after the first year of the war. After 1862 the only real chance was to hold Tennessee.
 
Yes, if just about any of the Confederate losses in the western theater could have been turned into a decisive victory.
 
I voted yes. Best scenarios locate in year 1861 with Jackson urge for "black flag" etc, but there was a chance in 62 also.. If Buell would have been late and Grant decivesly beaten in Shiloh, AND AotP loses some 40,000 more troops at Glendale when Lee cut them off the James river, then maybe, just maybe, opinion in North would have gone against the war..
 
Sure, if one ignores the fact that the North was winning in the west since February 1862, and in fact only lost one major battle there(Chickamauga); if one ignores the political ramifications of the EP stopping foreign recognition in its tracks; if one ignores that it was very difficult to destroy the opposing army (something that Lee strove mightily to do, but was unsuccessful); and if one discounts the loss of important locations in the mid and deep South (New Orleans, Memphis, Nashville, Corinth, Vicksburg, Port Hudson, Chattanooga and eventually Atlanta).

In short - no!
 
Just a straitforward question, do you think it was possible for the South to have won the civil war wether through military or political meens? Or, come to a truce, armistice, or truly anything that might have resulted in southern independence, on a large or limited scale?

Sure, the South could have won the war. Could have. If only... [fill in the blanks here]

What would likely have happened afterward has been a topic of interesting prognostication, too.

Coulda, shoulda, woulda...but didn't-a.
 
My point exactly, a long shot is still a shot just harder. Both sides made a bunch of mistakes but the north could afford to do stubid things and the south not so much.
 
Very possible. Some "close calls"
1) without Lincoln. Like him or not, he kept things wrapped together up north and under a less effective administrator it surely would have unwound.
2) A southern loss at 1st Bull Run. Impact: North thinks the war will be over in 6 weeks and doesn't get the scare in 'em, south resets its agenda and comes on much much stronger in the back half of '61 - with severe consequences
3) AS Johnston lives/wins, and Grant loses an army at Shiloh. Buell was too far away or whatever cause, the net effect is that Grant never holds another command.
4) Hooker stayed in command and totally misses the Confederate advance into Pennsylvania.
5) the Napoleon scenario, where a previously unknown emerges as the Cromwell of the war. This is always a possibility when one calls to Mars in order to solve a problem, and maybe we should all breath a quiet sigh of gratitude this did not happen.

There were a couple other possibilities, but these seem least far fetched.


thank goodness these close calls never happened.
 
No. While I do not feel that slavery was the reason for fighting, it was certainly one of the most important reasons. In the Constitution of the CSA it was illegal to do away with slavery. As long as any country insists on keeping slavery they cannot progress and always die a slow death, some faster than others, but dead none-the-less.


The 'peculiar institution' was the elephant in the room in all aspects........economically, politically, and last but not least , morally. Yes, it was the cause.
 
I voted no. Despite having some early success, the south lacked the resources: money, men, foreign aid, and competent leadership at the top. Some say the Confederates had only to hold out on the defensive in order to achieve victory, but I think that they would sooner or later give in to superior resouces of the North with an effective Blockade that essentailly made the rebs prisoners in their own Country. Politically speaking, the north possesed more talent for the prosacution of war (ie. Lincoln, Sewerd, Stanton, ect..than did the south).
 
Back
Top