Could the South Have Won the War? By Terry L. Jones 3/16/2015

What independence could they have achieved? They would have been a military dependency of France, and a financial dependency of Britain. Meanwhile the Irish would have continued to immigrate to the US and take the mining and manufacturing jobs. US iron and steel jobs would continue to draw English managers and Polish iron workers.
The US was already wired for telegraph communication by the end of the war. By 1864 it had a domestic firearms industry. Its naval bases on both coasts could turn out whatever ships were needed, and they were only going to get faster, with heavier guns.
Put together the US mining capacity and dynamite, and trenching speeds up.
Eventually the US builds temporary rail yards at the front, full of heavy railroad guns.
The Confederacy was actually lucky that they did not achieve independence. Because it may very well have led to the 1st World War being fought between Germany and France, in North America.
 
The big effect the CSA hoped for was European intervention. After 2nd Bull Run and Pope's disastrous defeat, both England and France were eyeing the situation carefully. If Lee had won big at Antietam, the south did not have to worry about a navy or a blockade. Both England and France would have made the difference. The CSA would have been recognized by the two larger sea powers and the result would have been disastrous to the Union. But it is all history now.
Not sure if any European countries were all that close to recognising the Confederacy once it was clear that the Border States were not going to join the Confederacy. I recall Slidell was definitely quizzed about the Border States by the British Foreign Ministry when Slidell was in London.
Kind of hard to predict what the UK or France would do based on a hypothetical.
As a general rule nations only intervene in a civil war when they have a compleing reason to do so. Of course if someone brings in some sources that would be great.
Leftyhunter
 
What independence could they have achieved? They would have been a military dependency of France, and a financial dependency of Britain. Meanwhile the Irish would have continued to immigrate to the US and take the mining and manufacturing jobs. US iron and steel jobs would continue to draw English managers and Polish iron workers.
The US was already wired for telegraph communication by the end of the war. By 1864 it had a domestic firearms industry. Its naval bases on both coasts could turn out whatever ships were needed, and they were only going to get faster, with heavier guns.
Put together the US mining capacity and dynamite, and trenching speeds up.
Eventually the US builds temporary rail yards at the front, full of heavy railroad guns.
The Confederacy was actually lucky that they did not achieve independence. Because it may very well have led to the 1st World War being fought between Germany and France, in North America.
That might be a bit far fetched .A United Germany didn't even exist until a good thirteen years post ACW. Nations need a compelling reason to intervene in a civil war. Not sure if there was an overwhelming reason to intervene bin the ACW by any nation.
Leftyhunter
 
Maybe we should keep in mind that the first American Civil War was the American Revolutionary War. In 1778 the Seven Years War started. Three at the time major European military powers France ,Spain and the Netherlands were at war with the UK. The UK was involved in a two front war in North America and the Indian Subcontinent. Of the two two the Indian Subcontinent was by far the most important prize.
Aiding the Colonial Rebels who had just won a major victory at Saratoga made sense. The ARW was not a popular conflict in the UK and young men from the UK were not eager to join the British Army the UK had to contract with various Germanic Principalities to obtain troops to fight the Colonial Rebels.
Eighty years later the Geo-Political scene had changed greatly. The British and French were now allies having fought a war against Russia that wasn't particularly popular and the people of both nations were not especially eager to go to war again.
Leftyhunter
 
It's easy to look back with the comfort of knowing the outcome and count the ways the Union had the advantages, but it certainly did not feel inevitable to the back then. I think a series of unlikely but possible events such as the death of Lincoln, the Confederacy being able to follow up after the first battle of Bull Run, the Confederate Ironside remaining a secret until launched and so forth could have changed the outcome.
 
1. Lincoln won the Presidential election, without southern votes. The Republicans had more men and more money, which is how they won the election.
2. By December of 1860, the initial census estimates showed that the Republicans were probably going to get more EC votes after reapportionment. The Confederates knew their section was the weaker section when they started.
3. The Midwest regiments from the US rushed into western Virginia, and into Missouri. A volunteer does not need to be 21, does not need to naturalized, and does not need a census marshal to count him. The US did not divide into slave states and paid labor states.
Maryland and Delaware were already Mid-Atlantic states, in which slavery was fading away as it already had in New Jersey.
Missouri, Kentucky and western Virginia permitted slavery, but they were tied into the Midwest corn and pork, wheat and horse economy. And the secessionists knew this. They knew the border states' loyalty to slavery was getting weaker the more the need for competitive railroads took hold.
4. The naval manpower of the US was in Boston and the old whaling ports, New York/Brooklyn/Newark and Philadelphia. They knew the maritime tradition of Maryland and Virginia had strong nationalist sentiments. Everyone knew the shipyards were in Portsmouth, ME, Boston, New York/Brooklyn, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C. and Mare Island, California. The southern Democrats had already lost the constitution and slavery issue in California.
5. International immigration returned to the 160,000 per year level by 1863. When the voting was totaled in 1864, more men had voted than in the previous election, and it was 100,000more in Pennsylvania. More people had become naturalized and many men had left the south looking for coal mining and iron making jobs. Pennsylvania and New Jersey companies were hiring.
1583164745573.png


The military losses to the US meant virtually nothing. The population of the Midwest was growing. By the end of the war decade there were 3.9M more people living in the Midwest. https://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0029/tab13.html And the population of the far west had increased by more than 50%.
Once again, the Civil War did not deflect the growth of the Midwest, it accelerated it. Which is why a mining state, Nevada, was admitted during the war, and a corn state, Nebraska, was admitted immediately after the war.
The US exported wheat during the Civil War, to maintain its balance of payments. The cities and armies of the Confederacy were starving by the end of 1864, because food could not move on a railroad system that was never built for long distance travel.
The US sent railroad equipment to San Francisco during the war and maintained a naval base in California. Naval escort vessels made sure important shipments from California were protected.
 
Not sure if any European countries were all that close to recognising the Confederacy once it was clear that the Border States were not going to join the Confederacy. I recall Slidell was definitely quizzed about the Border States by the British Foreign Ministry when Slidell was in London.
Kind of hard to predict what the UK or France would do based on a hypothetical.
As a general rule nations only intervene in a civil war when they have a compleing reason to do so. Of course if someone brings in some sources that would be great.
Leftyhunter
The border states would have thrown in with the CSA had Lee won big at Antietam, along with European powers.
(But this is just my opinion - after all, it's all hypothetical, not history.)
 
Our British friend posted this thread:
Britain knew the Confederacy was losing the war in 1862
The British knew what was going on and they knew Mason and Slidell were lying.
 
The border states would have thrown in with the CSA had Lee won big at Antietam, along with European powers.
(But this is just my opinion - after all, it's all hypothetical, not history.)
Not sure about that. Missouri had its chance to throw in with Confederacy after the Union defeat at Wilson's Creek. When the Confederate Army was in Kentucky they certainly had a chance to fall in with the Confederacy. The AnV met a cool reception in Maryland.
True it's hard to evaluate hypotheticals.
Leftyhunter
 
What independence could they have achieved? They would have been a military dependency of France, and a financial dependency of Britain. Meanwhile the Irish would have continued to immigrate to the US and take the mining and manufacturing jobs. US iron and steel jobs would continue to draw English managers and Polish iron workers.
The US was already wired for telegraph communication by the end of the war. By 1864 it had a domestic firearms industry. Its naval bases on both coasts could turn out whatever ships were needed, and they were only going to get faster, with heavier guns.
Put together the US mining capacity and dynamite, and trenching speeds up.
Eventually the US builds temporary rail yards at the front, full of heavy railroad guns.
The Confederacy was actually lucky that they did not achieve independence. Because it may very well have led to the 1st World War being fought between Germany and France, in North America.

Precisely. They would have had gained independence from the United Sates only to be subject to European neo-colonialism. They would have been the catalysts of the new world regressing back to the old world.
 
Precisely. They would have had gained independence from the United Sates only to be subject to European neo-colonialism. They would have been the catalysts of the new world regressing back to the old world.
Precisely. They would have had gained independence from the United Sates only to be subject to European neo-colonialism. They would have been the catalysts of the new world regressing back to the old world.
Not necessarily that's not what occurred when South Africa became an independent nation in 1910. With a smaller white population then the American South the South Africans could produce American automobiles under license less then twenty years latter.
Industriluzation doesn't require natural resources it does require a certain amount of education and national will plus political stability to attract foreign investment and technical support.
If South Africa could become a sophisticated industrilised nation and maintain an independent foreign policy so could an Confederate Nation.
Leftyhunter
 
Not necessarily that's not what occurred when South Africa became an independent nation in 1910. With a smaller white population then the American South the South Africans could produce American automobiles under license less then twenty years latter.
Industriluzation doesn't require natural resources it does require a certain amount of education and national will plus political stability to attract foreign investment and technical support.
If South Africa could become a sophisticated industrilised nation and maintain an independent foreign policy so could an Confederate Nation.
Leftyhunter

Nothing is for certain but the probability seemed certain. Ah, you pretty much gave a description of neo-colonialism, which the Europeans did not have be there in a vanguard manner, but they were certainty running the economies.

It depends how you look at South Africa:

1910 - Semi independent, own local government, still answers to Westminster parliament.

1931 - More independent. Ally of Britain. Still has governor general(elected official) Recognizes Queen as Monarch.

1961 - Completely independent. Forms a republic. President replaces governor general. Don’t recognize the Queen as monarch.

1994 - First universal elections held.
 
Ok
Nothing is for certain but the probability seemed certain. Ah, you pretty much gave a description of neo-colonialism, which the Europeans did not have be there in a vanguard manner, but they were certainty running the economies.

It depends how you look at South Africa:

1910 - Semi independent, own local government, still answers to Westminster parliament.

1931 - More independent. Ally of Britain. Still has governor general(elected official) Recognizes Queen as Monarch.

1961 - Completely independent. Forms a republic. President replaces governor general. Don’t recognize the Queen as monarch.

1994 - First universal elections held.
Ok
Nothing is for certain but the probability seemed certain. Ah, you pretty much gave a description of neo-colonialism, which the Europeans did not have be there in a vanguard manner, but they were certainty running the economies.

It depends how you look at South Africa:

1910 - Semi independent, own local government, still answers to Westminster parliament.

1931 - More independent. Ally of Britain. Still has governor general(elected official) Recognizes Queen as Monarch.

1961 - Completely independent. Forms a republic. President replaces governor general. Don’t recognize the Queen as monarch.

1994 - First universal elections held.
My main point was that if South Africa with a smaller white population then the American South could industrialize so could the American South. We can't really get to much into modern politics but an industrilised Confederate Nation was not out of the question.
Leftyhunter
 
McClellan came out against the peace plank of the Democrat national platform only AFTER Atlanta had fallen to Sherman. Before that, he had hedged his bets and refused to commit himself. It bears remembering that McClellan's first overt political act was the endorsement of a Copperhead Democrat for the Pennsylvania gubernatorial election in 1863. Moreover, he told numerous prominent Democrats (among them Manton Marble, editor of the New York World) that he would be willing to enter into a ceasefire with the Confederates if he won the White House in 1864.

Yes, this. It bears remembering that what presidential candidate say during their cmpaigns is not necessarily what they do once they get into office. See Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Richard Nixon, etc.
 
That's all the wanted to do. They didn't want to take over the mills in Hartford or the beach at Coney Island. The war aim was to be left alone, that's it.

Having read the article in the OP, I'll note the author's insistence on the inevitable is based upon predicting the reaction of others to events that never occurred. In other words, he's What Ifing the What Ifs to establish inevitability. That dog don't hunt.


Yes, but I think it is arguable that independence was all that the CSA wanted out of the war. They certainly wanted Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri, although we will never know how hard they would have been willing to fight for them. The also wanted New Mexico and Southern California. They also wanted to expand in the Caribbean (Cuba especially) and it is reasonable to expact that the CSA would have come to blows with USA over Caribbean expansion at some point.

Both USA and CSA were militarist and expansionist. Any sort of long-term peaceful coexistence seems far fetched.
 
Not necessarily that's not what occurred when South Africa became an independent nation in 1910. With a smaller white population then the American South the South Africans could produce American automobiles under license less then twenty years latter.
Industriluzation doesn't require natural resources it does require a certain amount of education and national will plus political stability to attract foreign investment and technical support.
If South Africa could become a sophisticated industrilised nation and maintain an independent foreign policy so could an Confederate Nation.
Leftyhunter
The circumstances of the one real country, which was a British dependency, and the other attempted nation, which was adjacent to an emerging super power, have few similarities. Its a silly comparison.
 
Yes, but I think it is arguable that independence was all that the CSA wanted out of the war. They certainly wanted Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri, although we will never know how hard they would have been willing to fight for them. The also wanted New Mexico and Southern California. They also wanted to expand in the Caribbean (Cuba especially) and it is reasonable to expact that the CSA would have come to blows with USA over Caribbean expansion at some point.

Both USA and CSA were militarist and expansionist. Any sort of long-term peaceful coexistence seems far fetched.
By 1864 the US was wired for telegraph service, across the whole nation. The big naval stations were creating new ships and outfitting used ships at a huge pace.
Medical care was improving rapidly and survival rates were climbing.
Camp cleanliness and army nutrition were improving rapidly. Grant and Meade even set up a rotation system in the trenches.
The war made it apparent, and the 1870 census put it numbers. The 1861 United States was a lot more modern, and incredibly more complex than anyone believed.
Schools, teachers, telegraph operators, railroad managers. The list was endless, all revealed when someone bothered to search for occupations and go out into the countryside and survey the rapidly growing west.
The annual death rate in 1860 was about 396,000 per year in the US. So during the four years, about 1.5M would have died anyway. More people died because there was a war, but most of them, soldiers or children, died from typhoid fever, and dysentary, not bullets.
The US could make up the losses in combat rapidly.
 
IMO, the odds against a confederate success were always massive. I have seen various scenario's that I believe would have shorten those odds, but not to any very significant degree.
 
The circumstances of the one real country, which was a British dependency, and the other attempted nation, which was adjacent to an emerging super power, have few similarities. Its a silly comparison.
No because both South Africa and the American South had very rigid racial polices, both were mainly Protestant, both had small white populations and both had slavery at one time.
South Africa never needed British protection as it's neighbors Portuguese Africa were friendly.
South Africa actually industrilised fairly fast. No reason an independent Confederate nation couldn't do the same without slavery which was what South Africa did.
Leftyhunter
 
Back
Top