Could the South have won the war? If so, how?

I wouldn't have even let it come to war I like Robert Toombs advice to Davis before Sumter "Mr. President, at this time it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend at the North. You will wantonly strike a hornet's nest which extends from mountain to ocean, and legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary; it puts us in the wrong; it is fatal."

Robert Toombs - A great man to often overlooked
 
I wouldn't have even let it come to war I like Robert Toombs advice to Davis before Sumter "Mr. President, at this time it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend at the North. You will wantonly strike a hornet's nest which extends from mountain to ocean, and legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary; it puts us in the wrong; it is fatal."

Robert Toombs - A great man to often overlooked
There were other ways to defend slavery. But the plantation interests would have to make some concessions. Then the Republicans would have to make some concessions. The Republicans were looking for votes on their western development policies. The plantation interests could have bargained for extra time to implement a New Jersey type plan for emancipation.
Some changes advocated by the Republicans would have been easy to implement, some would have been hard to implement.
 
If a person had asked an informed outsider, like Lord Lyons, in 1860, if the United States would fight to maintain its integrity, I doubt the question would have been treated as serious.
 
There are plenty of fantastic suggestions in which an asymmetry favoring the Confederacy could have happened. By in the real world, getting Maryland, Delaware and western Virginia to secede from a nation in which the capital was a short train ride away was not going to happen. The rich people of Missouri and California, and all the ordinary people who were moving to the places in between, wanted something from the federal government. They were not going to support secession.
 
The Ohio River formed a natural boundary between Kentucky and the Midwest. The Confederacy could not hold that boundary either. The United States had control of river traffic from the beginning of the war. As soon as the moment of necessity arrived, the United States regiments poured into Kentucky and the Confederates could never expel them.
 
The plantation interests could have bargained for extra time to implement a New Jersey type plan for emancipation.

They were not interested in plans for emancipation on any basic or timeline, and they certainly did not want it imposed on them by northern abolitionists or Republicans. States like New Jersey abolished slavery on their own initiative when a majority of their own people wanted to, not because they were pressured into it by outsiders.

If the slave states agreed to measures like restricting slavery in the territories, they would feel that they had made major and sufficient concessions.
 
I must say I'm surprised to see this thread is back.

One thing I would like to add, seeing the "climate" here with some, is that the fact that the Confederacy was capable of winning, doesn't discount the valor and tenacity of Union soldiers. Saying the Confederacy never had a chance does.

I bring that up because the tone of more than a few posts discount the Confederate's chances out of hand as pipedreams. To be adamant that the Union would have won no matter what discounts what they had to suffer by saying the enemy they fought was worthless. No I'm sure many a Union soldier, more than a few officers, and not to mention politicians would have said they faced a grave threat that they didn't know the outcome, and had to overcome many, many obstacles to win the victory. Being disdainful of the Confederacy's chances and saying they never could have possibly won, is a proverbial slap in the face to the Union and what they had to endure to win, mainly because the Confederacy came very close more than a few times, as I pointed out months ago the War could have ended very differently.

I know a little off topic, and not exactly my place to say, but looking at this thread since I left it before, I felt it should be pointed out.
 
I've already my views very clear on this thread as well as two other threads created by a user who frequented this thread I posted them here as well as the other threads. Just read what Union contemporaries (soldiers, civilians and enthusiastic supporters of the war) in Bull Run July 1861 to post-Trent Affair 1862. Seven Days Summer 1862-early to mid September fall pre-Antietam 1862, and post-Fredericksburg December 1862-Mud March January 1863 about the events unfolding and you will know what was going on to answer this question something that others like bob have failed to comprehend.

A lot of people on this thread don't really think outside the box when it comes to the question whether or not the South could have won the war (IMO yes) it could have started much earlier case in point 1849-1850 between January until September prior to the Compromise of 1850. You see after the Mexican-American War hundreds of thousands of new territory was acquired by the U.S. including California, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, Colorado however this created a new dilemma as now the balance between free and slave was threatened among the major issues were the Western territories status', California, the fugitive slaves, the slave trade/slavery in Washington, D.C., and most importantly the Texas-New Mexico boundary dispute. When Texas was a republic it held claims to as far as portions Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico it went as far as to launch an expedition in 1841 to secure control there but it failed and though Texas would later become a state in 1845 it initially wished to give up its territorial claims to New Mexico however it chose not to because it would be yielding its honor as noted by George T. Wood and his successor Peter Hansborough Bell would already begin planning to send Texas militia into New Mexico to reinforce its claims in late 1849. In Octoher 1849, representatives from several Southern states warned that if the Wilmost Proviso or any other act to restrict the South from its territories were to enacted then there would be secession. Bell would send Robert S. Neighbors (a Texas ranger) to New Mexico giving him copies of the Texas state constitution and the recent rulings of the state in both English and Spanish he would first arrive in El Paso to establish Texan authority in February 1850 to the excitement of Anglos and displeasure of Latinos two months later in April he would finally arrive in Santa Fe but he would notice that the Judge of the New Mexico Territory Robert Houghton was from New York (a Northern state) and was not friendly to him since he issued a proclaimation (in Spanish) t resist its "unjust usurpation" so Neighbors would go back to Texas he however considered it a temporary setback and it wouldn't be the last time Texas militia would be in New Mexico as in July Bell would call for volunteers armed and ready. In August, even when certain parts of the Compromise of 1850 had passed thanks to Stephen A. Douglas' assistance (earlier the Compromise as an Omnibus had failed) Texas was still prepared to march into New Mexico with 1,600 to fight the U.S. military garrison lead by Colonel John Munroe and 1,300 to fight pro-Union Santa Fe civilians ready to march by September 1, some individuals from the South offered to raise companies of men such as S.S. Scott (participated in the filibuster invasion attempt of Cuba) as well as a Kentuckian and a Georgian even Samuel Colt (a Connecticut-born Yankee) offered to arm Texas noting that they were his best customers. When Zachary Taylor was president he had sent 750 troops to reinforce the garrison and threatened to march with the army himself and hang any Southerner who disobeyed government authority and Winfield Scott already instructed U.S. troops in New Mexico to repel any attempt by Texas Ranger militia to take portions of the territory similarly his Northern-born successor Millard Fillmore warned that if Texas were to send its militia into New Mexico or any other state they would considered intruders and trespassers. Contemporary politicians and newspapers such as Alexander Stephens, Henry S. Foote, Robert Toombs, and Henry Clay himself as well as newspapers like the New York Herald and Richmond Republican warned that if Texas were to be fired upon by the United States government or if there was no compromise then disunion and eventually civil war would ensue and the other Southern states would join in with Texas. There could have been civil war a decade earlier.

See America's Great Debate by Fergus M. Bordewich.
 
***Posted as Moderator***
A reminder: the topic of this thread is "could the south have won the war; if so, how?"
Please stay on topic and respect the views of your fellow members.
 
I must say I'm surprised to see this thread is back.

One thing I would like to add, seeing the "climate" here with some, is that the fact that the Confederacy was capable of winning, doesn't discount the valor and tenacity of Union soldiers. Saying the Confederacy never had a chance does.

I bring that up because the tone of more than a few posts discount the Confederate's chances out of hand as pipedreams. To be adamant that the Union would have won no matter what discounts what they had to suffer by saying the enemy they fought was worthless. No I'm sure many a Union soldier, more than a few officers, and not to mention politicians would have said they faced a grave threat that they didn't know the outcome, and had to overcome many, many obstacles to win the victory. Being disdainful of the Confederacy's chances and saying they never could have possibly won, is a proverbial slap in the face to the Union and what they had to endure to win, mainly because the Confederacy came very close more than a few times, as I pointed out months ago the War could have ended very differently.

I know a little off topic, and not exactly my place to say, but looking at this thread since I left it before, I felt it should be pointed out.


RCA

I don't think anyone is saying that. Its just that provided the north has the will to fight to the bitter end the south is so heavily outclassed in terms of industrial potential especially. Doubly so because that means the north can increasingly isolate the south from outside resources by the blockade.The north in the early years was greatly helped by imports from Europe to arm and equip its forces but able to develop its own capacity later on. The south lacked this capacity so as the blockade tightened it increasingly lacked the resources to supply its military. Ditto with money and with transport capacity while also the fact the southern states had a less centralised government with the states having more power which hindered coordination.

Its the case of the plucky lightweight against the heavyweight. No matter their spirit and determination unless they get very lucky or are markedly superior in talent they will get worn down in the end. That's why, ultimately as I say it needed to be a case of the the north's will to fight on the issue being exhausted. The south can do this without external aid but it needs them to bring their A game consistently, have some luck and have the north make a fair number of mistakes, possibly most importantly probably politically in that Lincoln loses support for continuing the war.

Steve
 
The standard history was that the Republican Party and the United States had to conquer the Confederacy in order to be legitimate government. Maybe that is the way they thought.
But the United States needed very little Confederate territory in order to form a contiguous and coherent mass.
On the Atlantic coast the southern states had at one time been dominant over the northern states. The northern states were numerous, but small.
But by 1861 there were three sections, not two. And there was a potential fourth section: the West.
 
The United States had to have a secure hold on Maryland. Without that they would have had to move the capital away from Washington, D.C.
They had to have the western counties of Virginia in order for the transportation routes between east and west to be secure.
They had to have Missouri, which controlled the Mississippi and Missouri rivers, as well as the geographic access to the far west.
Unfortunately for the Confederates, all these areas were going to be controlled by the dominance of the United States economy and the dominance of the northern population. When it was just a matter of quickly organized, untrained units showing up, 90% of success in the opinion of the famous New York comedian, the United States was going to be able to hold on to the border areas. It was less than they hoped for, but included three of the main cities in states that allowed coerced labor. It also included numerous small towns like Wheeling, Covington Ky and Newton Ky, which contained a large potential military age population.
Based on that preponderance, the 36 degree 30 minute line could have been reinstated as the permanent boundary between paid labor and coerced labor. Some settlement to compensate Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri for their slaves would have to been worked out, but that was possible.
 
The United States had to have a secure hold on Maryland. Without that they would have had to move the capital away from Washington, D.C.
They had to have the western counties of Virginia in order for the transportation routes between east and west to be secure.
They had to have Missouri, which controlled the Mississippi and Missouri rivers, as well as the geographic access to the far west.
Unfortunately for the Confederates, all these areas were going to be controlled by the dominance of the United States economy and the dominance of the northern population. When it was just a matter of quickly organized, untrained units showing up, 90% of success in the opinion of the famous New York comedian, the United States was going to be able to hold on to the border areas. It was less than they hoped for, but included three of the main cities in states that allowed coerced labor. It also included numerous small towns like Wheeling, Covington Ky and Newton Ky, which contained a large potential military age population.
Based on that preponderance, the 36 degree 30 minute line could have been reinstated as the permanent boundary between paid labor and coerced labor. Some settlement to compensate Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri for their slaves would have to been worked out, but that was possible.
No offense to you, you have been already proven wrong about West Virginia recruitment ratio and the attitudes of the planters on a New Jersey-style emancipation. Generally speaking, I have explained my views on the border states which had their own political and economic situations different from one another not just simply coercion as you claim.
 
Back
Top