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

I often hear that the south was a one crop country and that was Cotton.
What role did the tobacco play as that seemed to be exported all over the world as well?

Yeah, go ahead and make that thread and see how far you get. Add in tobacco and sugar and you have region who only contributed 7-8% of the GDP
 
But tell the whole story to why they still have wishy-washy economies that constantly contract that's backed by excessive centralism that birthed class hegemony, abnormal illiteracy, social inequality, sustained low real incomes and enormous poverty rates. This all stems from slavery and the subsequent failure to invest human capital through education and social reform.

Who cares if those countries industrialized, they didn't put any of it to good use and it only benefited a few people and they still have a weak government structure. The probability that the south would have followed that pattern is rather strong because it appears they had no intentions on freeing the slaves anytime soon and their Jim Crow laws indicate they had no interest in investing in class equality, education and social reform. All the evidence points in the direction that the south could have emulated SA and Brazil's so-called sophisticated industrialism is not much to brag about.

Comparing the British and US industrialism to other countries industrialism is rather dull and a bad comparison because of the education rates were much higher. The inventions, technology innovations and education systems compelled the north to an economic expansion during the Gilded Age that was unprecedented. It had more to do with just industrializing and how it became industrial , it had to do with masses of the educated people who became engineers, scientists and entrepreneurs which built a core country.

From 1776-1860, 93% of the major inventions from in this country were from the free states. The literacy rates were like 75-80% in the north, whereas 7% inventions and 50% were illiterate in the south while they held onto slavery.

Yes, the south would have had the same outcome as Brazil and SA.
That's a valid point. Some of our posters have argued that it would of been difficult for the American South to industrilize but Brazil and South Africa did so and yes in common with the American South they have a historical tradition of slavery and racial discrimination although Brazil was de facto not de jure.
Yes as in the case of the American South most of the Industrial workers in Brazil and South Africa would be European immigrants or native whites.
True people of color would not really benefit.
However my main point was simply that industriluzation was indeed feasible in the American South and over time from the antebellum era forward that's what happened although not always quickly and easily.
Leftyhunter
 
I often hear that the south was a one crop country and that was Cotton.
What role did the tobacco play as that seemed to be exported all over the world as well?
The Ottoman Empire started growing tabacco in 1603 and South Africa in 1657. So if the South can't export tabacco other countries could easily take up the slack plus of course Cuba and Honduras.
Leftyhunter
 
Not so sure about the Confederacy" going it's own way". The Confederacy definitely tried to seize the New Mexico Territory and at least San Bernardino County California. Unfortunstely for the Confederacy they were stoped at the battle of Gloritea Pass.
There is some Confederate Correspondence regarding siezing parts of Mexico to expand slavery.
In the Antebellum era Southern politicians pushed President Buchanan to purchase Cuba but the King of Spain wasn't interested even when offered a high price. Antebellum slave owners financed " fillabusters" who tried to size Nicaragua the most famous being William Walker. It didn't quite work out.
There was a popular secret society especially in the South called "Circle of the Golden Crescent" that advocated for an independent slave republic with it's capital city being Havana and encompassing the American South, Cuba, Southern Mexico and much or all of Central America.
Leftyhunter
Thanks Leftyhunter I’ve learnt something. Am I not right in thinking the South did want to go its own way as opposed to being a part of the Union?
 
Thanks Leftyhunter I’ve learnt something. Am I not right in thinking the South did want to go its own way as opposed to being a part of the Union?
Pretty much that's the case. We have a number of threads that quote what the secessionists stated and definitely they wanted a slave republic. How large said republic would be depended on various circumstances but the seccesionists did acknowledge slavery had to expand or die.
We sometimes forget about how Bloody Kansas comes into play. Slave Owners in Missouri really coveted Kansas and were more then willing to shed blood but John Brown and emigrants from New England had something to say about that and Kansas entered as a free state.
If slavery can't expand then the price per slave will go down plus cotton exhausts the soil.
So not a lot of choices on the table for slave owners.
Leftyhunter
 
The shock of secession set back the United States for about 6 months. But when Kentucky did not secede, it was a mass of 21 connected paid labor states, against 11 slave labor states. In addition the US had three potential states in W. Virginia, Nebraska and Nevada. It turned out the secessionists were correct. California and Oregon were not connected to the rest of the US, but they were still part of the economy. The areas bordering the paid labor states were giving up on slavery, because it did not create any big cost advantage. Immigrants worked harder and were fast learners.
The southerners also new the US navy would show up. Before secession, they built up the forts and dispersed the fleet. Then they seized the forts and armed them with equipment captured at Norfolk. But it did not matter. Portsmouth, ME, Boston, Brooklyn and Philadelphia could build whatever was needed. On the rivers, it was the same. From Pittsburgh to St. Louis, the US held on to the steamboat industry.
They knew. They most certainly knew.
 
The Ottoman Empire started growing tabacco in 1603 and South Africa in 1657. So if the South can't export tabacco other countries could easily take up the slack plus of course Cuba and Honduras.
Leftyhunter
Thanks for this and the other comments. Glad to see that Tobacco was small beer in the southern economy that never was going to rival the north for complexity and energy.
 
I think you're disproportionally leaving out a comparison that would give us the more accurate probabilities. The north was annoyed but not remotely exhausted. The south was annoyed and exhausted. All the difference in the world.
No sticking to historical facts, which few in this forum pay attention to. Yes, the South was outnumbered and outproduced, but not outfought. The casualty rate for the Union was way too high for the war-mongers who thought this would be an "easy war."
 
It's especially interesting to realize that if The War for Confederate Independence was actually fought over slavery, then the slaves states of Delaware, Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky, and West Virginia would have joined the Confederacy, and the CSA would then have undoubtedly achieved permanent independence. Abraham Lincoln himself openly acknowledged this. So the one way for the CSA to win the war would have been to ensure it was a war fought over slavery. But because the war was actually fought between two slave republics over the right of political independence and self-government, the aforementioned slaves states remained in the Union thereby assuring it of military success.
 
The south had a possible quick real early opportunity in the war. Nothing but cavalry was showing up in Richmond, but darn little was showing up in D.C. The thought in Richmond was to send a huge cavalry raid, but the idea was stopped by Davis. In fact he sent much cavalry home, refusing to take more.
And we are supposing that England would continue to support the south if the south won. Who is to say England and France wouldn't have become greedy land grabbers. How healthy is north and south after a long bloody war?
 
No sticking to historical facts, which few in this forum pay attention to. Yes, the South was outnumbered and outproduced, but not outfought. The casualty rate for the Union was way too high for the war-mongers who thought this would be an "easy war."
Actually the Union Army won victories even when outnumbered I e. Prairie Grove,Pea Ridge, Milks Springs,Honey Springs and battle of Atlanta and I probably overlooked some.
The Union Army only averaged at the battlefield a 1.86 to one manpower superiority ratio so that's not bad fighting for the Union. It's very rare in the pre air war era for a smaller army to win a conventional war. Also modern historians now believe the Confederate Army list more men then previous historians estimated.
Leftyhunter
 
It's especially interesting to realize that if The War for Confederate Independence was actually fought over slavery, then the slaves states of Delaware, Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky, and West Virginia would have joined the Confederacy, and the CSA would then have undoubtedly achieved permanent independence. Abraham Lincoln himself openly acknowledged this. So the one way for the CSA to win the war would have been to ensure it was a war fought over slavery. But because the war was actually fought between two slave republics over the right of political independence and self-government, the aforementioned slaves states remained in the Union thereby assuring it of military success.
Not exactly true . Border States sent men to fight on both sides. Approximately 25k Confederate vs 50k Union in Kentucky per Stephen Freeling " The South vs the South". In Missouri per the Missouri Historical Society 30k Confederate vs 110k Union enlisted. In WV about 20k on each side. I can't find numbers for Maryland but per Dyers Compendium it appears more men from MD fought for the Union.
The above figures do not include Confederate guerillas vs Union Milita.
Leftyhunter
 
Not exactly true . Border States sent men to fight on both sides. Approximately 25k Confederate vs 50k Union in Kentucky per Stephen Freeling " The South vs the South". In Missouri per the Missouri Historical Society 30k Confederate vs 110k Union enlisted. In WV about 20k on each side. I can't find numbers for Maryland but per Dyers Compendium it appears more men from MD fought for the Union.
The above figures do not include Confederate guerillas vs Union Milita.
Leftyhunter

Exactly true. Had all the slave States seceded, the job of maintaining the union by force would have been, as Lincoln himself openly admitted, "too large". In fact, he said that about Kentucky alone. So if all 4 had seceded, it would have been much too much to maintain the union by brute force. And there is no such thing as a "Border State". That's a way of trying to avoid confronting the truth of it all; the truth that the war was fought between two slave republics over the right of self-government and political independence.
 
Exactly true. Had all the slave States seceded, the job of maintaining the union by force would have been, as Lincoln himself openly admitted, "too large". In fact, he said that about Kentucky alone. So if all 4 had seceded, it would have been much too much to maintain the union by brute force. And there is no such thing as a "Border State". That's a way of trying to avoid confronting the truth of it all; the truth that the war was fought between two slave republics over the right of self-government and political independence.
Not really. Border States had less slaves per capita then Confederate States thus they sent a larger percentage of their manpower to the Union.
If you read the excellent book with extensive sources " Lincoln's Loyalists Union soldiers from the Confederacy" Richard Current North East University Press the less slaves per capita in a Southern county resulted in more Southern whites enlisting in the Union Army plus more defections and desertions from the Confederate Army.
For example Tennessee had 42k Unionist soldiers (meaning white Southern soldiers) who enlisted in the Union Army. Most came from counties in Eastern Tennessee that had low populations of slaves per capita.
Same in Northern Arkansas and Alabama. Same for Western North Carolina.
Unionist guerrillas were always more present in counties that had less slaves per capita. So yes the war was about slavery.
Leftyhunter
 
Not really. Border States had less slaves per capita then Confederate States thus they sent a larger percentage of their manpower to the Union.
If you read the excellent book with extensive sources " Lincoln's Loyalists Union soldiers from the Confederacy" Richard Current North East University Press the less slaves per capita in a Southern county resulted in more Southern whites enlisting in the Union Army plus more defections and desertions from the Confederate Army.
For example Tennessee had 42k Unionist soldiers (meaning white Southern soldiers) who enlisted in the Union Army. Most came from counties in Eastern Tennessee that had low populations of slaves per capita.
Same in Northern Arkansas and Alabama. Same for Western North Carolina.
Unionist guerrillas were always more present in counties that had less slaves per capita. So yes the war was about slavery.
Leftyhunter


" I think to lose Kentucky is nearly the same as to lose the whole game. Kentucky gone, we can not hold Missouri, nor, as I think, Maryland. These all against us, and the job on our hands is too large for us. We would as well consent to separation at once, including the surrender of this capitol." - Abraham Lincoln
 
" I think to lose Kentucky is nearly the same as to lose the whole game. Kentucky gone, we can not hold Missouri, nor, as I think, Maryland. These all against us, and the job on our hands is too large for us. We would as well consent to separation at once, including the surrender of this capitol." - Abraham Lincoln
That's true but Kentucky has I stated sent 25k men to the Confederacy vs 50 k to the Union. So Lincoln was right to be anxious but since most people from Kentucky weren't slave owners they weren't willing to fight for the Confederacy. Actually many men from Kentucky just enjoyed some burboun and sat the war out.
Leftyhunter
 
That's true but Kentucky has I stated sent 25k men to the Confederacy vs 50 k to the Union. So Lincoln was right to be anxious but since most people from Kentucky weren't slave owners they weren't willing to fight for the Confederacy. Actually many men from Kentucky just enjoyed some burboun and sat the war out.
Leftyhunter


Interesting observation, especially since Kentucky bitterly clung to slavery until the 13th amendment was adopted.
 
Would somebody please remind of the occasion when Lincoln said; "I hope to have God on my side, but I must have Kentucky".
 
Interesting observation, especially since Kentucky bitterly clung to slavery until the 13th amendment was adopted.
The slave owners of Kentucky may have bitterly hung on to their slaves but the vast majority of white military age males were not going to fight for the Confederacy. There is a reason that the Confederate "Orphan Brigade was called the Orphan Brigade.
Leftyhunter
 
The slave owners of Kentucky may have bitterly hung on to their slaves but the vast majority of white military age males were not going to fight for the Confederacy. There is a reason that the Confederate "Orphan Brigade was called the Orphan Brigade.
Leftyhunter


The slave-owners of Kentucky did indeed cling bitterly to their slaves. And the vast majority of white males were not going to risk losing their slaves through secession. Their slave property was better protected by staying in the union. So they stayed.
 
Back
Top