Did the South have a chance to win the Civil War?

historicus

Private
Joined
Oct 12, 2016
In Ken Burns' documentary The Civil War, Shelby Foote said, "The North fought the war with one hand tied behind their back. If there had been more southern victories, and i mean a lot more, i think that the North would have just took that other arm out from behind their back. I don't think that the South had any chance to win that war." I disagree with Shelby Foote on this.

It is simplistic and juvenile to interpret the outcome of the Civil War as strictly preordained due to the imbalance in resources. Resources were a factor in limiting the South's margin of error, rather than a final determinant. There are any number of mistakes that the South made that contributed to their defeat. Strictly brainstorming, here are some of their mistakes:

1# the decision to fire on Fort Sumter instead of using that time productively diplomatically, economically, and militarily. The blockade was not in place before Fort Sumter, and the northern ships were still picking up cotton at southern ports during the time period after the formation of the Confederacy and before Fort Sumter. Before the war, the South should have used that time to trade as much cotton as they could for war materials such as rifled muskets, artillery, battleships, and other war materials. The South needed more war materials, not more cotton. Also, the South should have fortified as much as possible before the war.


2# the decision to build Fort Henry in a flood plain which led to the Confederates having to abandon it due to it flooding

3# the failure to adopt and implement a plan to keep Fort Donelson from being captured by the Federals. Fort Donelson was (foolishly) designed only to protect against an attack by water, not an attack by land. 4# Also, the failure to establish a unified command structure at Fort Donelson, which made it extremely difficult for the Confederates to defend Fort Donelson. These two mistakes at Fort Donelson led not only to the Confederates losing Fort Donelson but also the capture of 10,000 Confederate troops who surrendered there.

4# the failure to adopt and implement a strategy to keep Vicksburg from being captured by the Federals. The Confederacy failed to establish a unified command structure in the Confederate forces both in Vicksburg and in the vicinity of Vicksburg. The South could have kept Vicksburg, but they did not coordinate with each other. The left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing. The CSA could have sent troops from the Army of Northern Virginia to attack Rosecrans, to draw Federal troops away from Vicksburg. The Federals took Vicksburg by siege by starving the citizens and the troops into surrendering. The Confederates should have stocked Vicksburg with non-perishable foodstuffs before the siege.

5# the failure to adopt and implement a plan to keep New Orleans from being captured by the Federals

6# the failure to adopt and implement a plan to save Atlanta from being captured

7# Pickett's charge at Gettysburg cost the South 6,000 troops that they desperately needed

8# CSA General Hood decision to make the charge at Franklin cost the South troops it desperately needed for little gain

9# the failure of the South to properly fortify the areas that they desperately needed to protect such as the Selma Ironworks, Chattanooga, Richmond, Savannah, New Orleans, and Richmond. Forts can be a great force multiplier. The SOuth could win the war just by not losing. Also, the South was greatly outnumbered. Fortifying the South would have been an effective strategy.

10# the Confederates mistake of leaving Lee's battle plans so that the Federals found them and knew Lee's plans at Antietam

11# the Confederate's picket lines accidentally shooting General Stonewall Jackson after Chancellorsville

12# The failure to immediately open the cotton trade with Europe, rather than embargo it.

13# Confederate General Polk's decision to violate Kentucky neutrality. If General Polk had not violated Kentucky neutrality, Kentucky would have provided an excellent buffer zone for the Confederacy. Kentucky neutrality would have freed up a lot of Confederate troops to defend other areas.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The South lost the Civil War in the West. There was a substantial peace movement in the North at certain times in the war even with all these huge CSA mistakes. Imagine how strong the peace movement would have been with northern casualties doubled for far less strategic gains. Imagine how strong the peace movement would have been in the North if the South managed to keep Fort Henry, Fort Donelson, and Vicksburg. I think that the North would not have been willing to take that other hand out from behind their back if they took much heavier casualties for little or no strategic gains.
 
I think the thing is that you need to defend Richmond anyway or you lose Virginia, which is a massive chunk of the CSA's military manpower and their only real scope to threaten DC in turn.


I think the more interesting possibility is that Stuart's cavalry takes out the Army of the Potomac's wagon trains - Meade cut away from his supply lines to concentrate faster, but if he loses them he's more or less got to retreat into Washington (itself sort of dicey) and go largely static until they can replace his transport.
Those are good observations. Duly noted!
 
Vote Here:
There were too many entry points for US troops in the Confederate territory west of the Appalachians for the Confederacy to defend.
1590326136868.png
 
Vote Here:
They began to lose territory, immediately. And because it was not a foreign war, the people who remained in the US, retained their language, religion and usual government. The only thing that changed was that it was very hard to enforce and protect slavery.
 
Vote Here:
The United States had a very large amount of uncommitted ship building capacity in 1860 as a result of the end of the Gold Rush and the 1857 panic.
1590326491292.png


And it was no secret where the capacity existed. It was readily disclosed in the Preliminary Report of the 1860 census.

1590326623451.png

https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1860/preliminary-report/1860e-06.pdf?# See page 107.
Politicians and then journalists who hid these facts from southern citizens and then impressionable readers, were being disingenuous.
And how had the US conquered 1/2 of Mexico? By projecting force to Veracruz and capturing Mexico City. How had the Patriots outlasted the British? The French fleet showed up off the Virginia coast and the British conceded that the colonies were not worth the cost.
 
Vote Here:
The static position of the opposing economies that most writers use to build the case of possible Confederate victory, was misleading.
The paid labor states were clearly over taking the southern areas, and the states of VA and SC, which had previously been so important were becoming irrelevant.
1590327205357.png


And after 14 months of mobilization, all the top 10 states in terms of population were either in the US, border states occupied by the US, or states partially occupied by the US.
 
Vote Here:
See pages 272 and 273,
View attachment 359917

Whether the US had unlimited military manpower can be debated. The definitely had more white military manpower the the Confederacy.
And because the US had women workers, slaves fleeing the border states for work with or service in the US army and navy, and a renewed flow of immigrants, it had unlimited industrial and agricultural power.
 
Vote Here:
Growing cotton will ruin the soil. Plantation owners were constantly using up the soil and having to find fresh soil. If the South had somehow won their independence they would have eventually depleted enough of the land that cotton would no longer be king. When cotton was king, you could ride from Atlanta to Montgomery and never loose sight of cotton. That soil is so bad now pine trees won't even grow well.

This was something I learned from an Agronomist at Auburn University. WAR EAGLE!!
The trend throughout this era was for falling commodity prices. Had the south won and then faced a bust in cotton prices their nation would have been a wreck.
 
Vote Here:
The trend throughout this era was for falling commodity prices. Had the south won and then faced a bust in cotton prices their nation would have been a wreck.
Conditions in Texas were tremendous for cotton, at least until the boll weavil struck. All Texas needed was railroads, and it was going to put tremendous downward pressure on the price of cotton. There were too many people pursuing the same commodity.
 
Vote Here:
The real risk to the people of the south was that they would achieve independence on a temporary basis. At the rate the US was industrializing, and as early as normal chain immigration was restored to the US, ca 1863, since the US industrial base and naval power was increasing, no diminishing, the war would certainly been renewed at some point.
Although the Confederates could look to France for international support, the US was developing strong ties with Germany and Prussia. The US would have certainly abolished slavery during a period of separation, as the example of West Virginia demonstrates.
Russia probably would have tolerated Germany helping the US and the British would have been in a sticky situation domestically.
The prospect for a more industrialized war, featuring steel armored ships, telephones, long range artillery and rapid advances in mechanical rifle machines, a WWI on American soil, would make the actual US Civil War look like a picnic.
Just a minor correction . There was no such thing as Germany until 1878 when the Kaiser during the Franco -Prussian War united Prussia with most but not all German speaking countries.
During the ACW there were many different German speaking nations with Prussia being the largest hetro nation.
My understanding is while the Germanic nations traded with the US the US was not at the time a major trading partner of any Germanic nation so the reduction of trade with the Southern states was not cause for alarm.
Leftyhunter
 
Vote Here:
Just a minor correction . There was no such thing as Germany until 1878 when the Kaiser during the Franco -Prussian War united Prussia with most but not all German speaking countries.
During the ACW there were many different German speaking nations with Prussia being the largest hetro nation.
My understanding is while the Germanic nations traded with the US the US was not at the time a major trading partner of any Germanic nation so the reduction of trade with the Southern states was not cause for alarm.
Leftyhunter

I don’t wish to be picky Leftyhunter but I think you’ll find the German nation was established in 1871.
 
Vote Here:
I don’t wish to be picky Leftyhunter but I think you’ll find the German nation was established in 1871.
And about 1871 they would have been looking for allies, especially enemies of Napoleon III. A unifying Italy and the USA with a high % of German immigrants would have been likely allies.
 
Vote Here:
Back
Top