Was it worth it?

[Old Soldier]

King Cotton was dethroned. The oversized power of the deep south Democrats was ruined. Comparing it to deposing a monarch has some merit.

Now tell that to the Southerners whose land was bought up by Northern entrepreneurs for peanuts.

 

[JerryD]

The point I'm grappling with here is that Shelby Foote's insistence that the South never had a chance in that war - that the North effectively fought with one hand tied behind its back and that all it had to do was bring out that other hand - rather tends to make the war seem more of a tragically futile or pointless affair. If, on the other hand, the South possessed the attributes necessary to win its fight - and it's not beyond the realms of possibility that it did, in my opinion- then that war was more worthwhile. Indeed, is it legitimate to suggest that it needed to be fought, in that case ? I wanted to integrate slavery into the equation, since that was a defining difference between the two sides. If the South had the wherewithal to adapt its most notorious institution to expand and generate wealth, then it was going to be better endowed to fight with a chance of winning.

I'd be careful about getting your history from Foote. Great story teller and I enjoy reading his trilogy, but he was not a historian. I always say he was a story teller, and he never let the truth get in the way of a good story. The truth is, the "war was impossible for the CSA to win" was a southern Lost Cause myth created to make the south not feel shame for losing the war.

For what its worth, I do agree that south could have won the war. Granted, it was going to take some help from the USA that made it squander some of its advantages, and it was going to take them better utilizing their own advantages. But I've always felt that anyone who claims the CSA could not have won the war is lying to you and pretending to be a fortune teller. There were any number of possible outcomes of that war and people love to fall into the trap that since it happened this way, it MUST ONLY be the way it could go. And that is just a fallacy.

 

[JerryD]

Its difficult to conceive of how the two nations, both aggressive and expantionist, could lived side by side for any considerable time.

You mean like England and France?

 

[JerryD]

That brings up a related, interesting discussion. Perhaps it's been discussed in another thread before. But I agree with you that the longer the confederacy waited to secede, the larger the gap between north and south would be. So that begs the question, is there any "Goldilocks zone" of secession, far enough removed from both the external threats of the AWI and the internal threats of the ACW, where the south would have been most likely to secede successfully?

I've seen it argued, rather persuasively, that the ACW was fought in a kind of goldilocks zone of opportunity. I'm probably not doing the argument justice, but the gist was that even by 1860, armies were relatively simple things to create. Take a bunch of folks, give them a rifle and some training, and that was about it. That is a gross oversimplification, but pretty close. Cannons and cavalry were also pretty simple at that point as well. The point is that the industrial revolution was coming and warfare was going to become more and more mechanized, and while the ACW exhibited some of this with repeating rifles, railroads, steamships and ironclads, but that all of this technology was only going to accelerate and become more prominent as you went deeper into the 19th century.

They also argued that the development of the rifle and field fortifications had made defensive tactics more powerful, which also favored the CSA as it would fight an essentially defensive war.

 

[Old Soldier]

You mean like England and France?

We lost. France (the Normans) invaded in 1066 and the nobility spoke French for the next 400 years. Once deprived of our last French lands in 1558 (Calais) it was all out war for another 300 years - once we had dealt with the Spanish and the Dutch.

 

[JerryD]

We lost. France (the Normans) invaded in 1066 and the nobility spoke French for the next 400 years. Once deprived of our last French lands in 1558 (Calais) it was all out war for another 300 years - once we had dealt with the Spanish and the Dutch.

And yet you survived and still exist.

 

[wausaubob]

1. The Confederacy could never have won.
2. It probably took a war, with US war ships sailing into all the Confederate harbors, and US soldiers and troopers marching through and riding over the Confederacy to prove that the government had the technology and the money to govern.
3. The late Mr. Foote was not a lost causer. He probably read extensively in newspapers and magazines published during the Civil War and he knew how lightly the war sat on most areas of the north. Shelby Foote told stories. But his stories were based on his knowledge and his reading.
4. Once the EP was accepted in Europe, and once the US pincher movement was completed on the Mississippi River, the US had won. The fact that the killing and dying went on does not imply the Confederacy could have won.

 

[JerryD]

1. The Confederacy could never have won.
2. It probably took a war, with US war ships sailing into all the Confederate harbors, and US soldiers and troopers marching through and riding over the Confederacy to prove that the government had the technology and the money to govern.
3. The late Mr. Foote was not a lost causer. He probably read extensively in newspapers and magazines published during the Civil War and he knew how lightly the war sat on most areas of the north. Shelby Foote told stories. But his stories were based on his knowledge and his reading.
4. Once the EP was accepted in Europe, and once the US pincher movement was completed on the Mississippi River, the US had won. The fact that the killing and dying went on does not imply the Confederacy could have won.

Can you tell me where you bought that crystal ball that tells you the answer to every What If? That's pretty impressive. LOL....

Bottom line, that is your opinion. And you are entitled to it. But to pretend you know is not an opinion. Its actually telling a falsehood. Other people have other opinions, and happy to discuss that, but reality is, as much as you like to pretend otherwise, you just don't know every possible result from a complex set of actions like the ACW. You are falling into the fallacy that since it happened this way, then that is the only way it could have happened. Which is just false.

 

[The Ninth Ohio]

You are falling into the fallacy that since it happened this way, then that is the only way it could have happened. Which is just false.

No. I would suggest you go back and read through the whole thread, because that's not at all what he's saying.

You may disagree and say the south could still have won because of X, Y, and Z, but then…aren't you really the one engaging in what ifs? After all, the south really did lose, and it wasn't even that close.

 

[JerryD]

No. I would suggest you go back and read through the whole thread, because that's not at all what he's saying.

You may disagree and say the south could still have won because of X, Y, and Z, but then…aren't you really the one engaging in what ifs? After all, the south really did lose, and it wasn't even that close.

Well, yes, of course "Could the CSA have won" is a what if. That is kind of obvious.

And when someone says There no way the south COULD have won (emphasis added), I'm sorry, but I disagree, I do think he is falling into the fallacy of thinking they know more than they actually do.

Its not hard to come up with alternative scenarios where the CSA wins. What if Lincoln's ham handed handling of Maryland drives Maryland and Kentucky to secede? What if Lincoln bungles the beginning of the war and instead of uniting the country after Sumter, the north is further split by Lincoln being perceived as the aggressor? What if the Supreme Court rules that secession is legal and the US and Lincoln have no authority to force the states back into the Union, thus destroying northern support for the war? What if Lee cripples a large part of the AOP during the Seven Days and puts it under siege at Harrison's Landing, forcing it to surrender en masse? What if the Monitor sank on the way to Hampton Roads and the Virginia was able to devastate the AOP's troops ships? What if the Lost Order is never lost and Lee ends up crushing McClellan in Pennsylvania? What if the CSA followed up the victory at First Bull Run by following up the retreating US army and capturing DC and most of the US government, including Lincoln? What if the CSA's capture of DC and Lincoln prompts Great Britain and France to recognize the CSA? What if the Trent affair is handled differently and Great Britain invades the north from Canada? What if the CSA defends New Orleans better and does not lose its largest city and a big stretch of Mississippi early in the war? What if Sherman dies at First Bull Run and Grant gets shot and killed at Belmont?

People will say none of that happened. True, but that is the fallacy of it didn't happened, so it couldn't have happened. It would not have taken much for any of the above to happen. I little bad luck here, a little more planning here, and momentous differences occur. That is the nature of war.

 

[The Ninth Ohio]

Well, yes, of course "Could the CSA have won" is a what if. That is kind of obvious.

And when someone says There no way the south COULD have won (emphasis added), I'm sorry, but I disagree, I do think he is falling into the fallacy of thinking they know more than they actually do.

Its not hard to come up with alternative scenarios where the CSA wins. What if Lincoln's ham handed handling of Maryland drives Maryland and Kentucky to secede? What if Lincoln bungles the beginning of the war and instead of uniting the country after Sumter, the north is further split by Lincoln being perceived as the aggressor? What if the Supreme Court rules that secession is legal and the US and Lincoln have no authority to force the states back into the Union, thus destroying northern support for the war? What if Lee cripples a large part of the AOP during the Seven Days and puts it under siege at Harrison's Landing, forcing it to surrender en masse? What if the Monitor sank on the way to Hampton Roads and the Virginia was able to devastate the AOP's troops ships? What if the Lost Order is never lost and Lee ends up crushing McClellan in Pennsylvania? What if the CSA followed up the victory at First Bull Run by following up the retreating US army and capturing DC and most of the US government, including Lincoln? What if the CSA's capture of DC and Lincoln prompts Great Britain and France to recognize the CSA? What if the Trent affair is handled differently and Great Britain invades the north from Canada? What if the CSA defends New Orleans better and does not lose its largest city and a big stretch of Mississippi early in the war? What if Sherman dies at First Bull Run and Grant gets shot and killed at Belmont?

People will say none of that happened. True, but that is the fallacy of it didn't happened, so it couldn't have happened. It would not have taken much for any of the above to happen. I little bad luck here, a little more planning here, and momentous differences occur. That is the nature of war.

That's a lot of what ifs.

 

[NH Civil War Gal]

IF all the "what ifs" came true, perhaps the South would have won the war. But…. As it stands factually in history as we know it today - the South was NOT going to win the war.

There is one fact alone that was going to cause it to end. Lee's army was starving to death. At the end, the soldiers were only surviving on 500 calories a day. This is a known fact. It takes about 5,000 calories a day to sustain a fighting soldier in the field. Grants soldiers had that in the Eastern Theater. Whole units of Southern soldiers were already either leaving to go home or deserting to Union lines, simply for food. It really got to be that simple.

At the very end, Lee was in a tight pincer movement that he couldn't have gotten out of. He did the noble and right thing instead of continuing a years long guerrilla war that most people didn't want.

Without drastic and I mean drastic intervention, early on in the South, they simply did not have the raw mining power, the technology power or the male replacement power to keep going. They didn't have the agricultural replacement power and that was from some incredibly bad decisions on the higher CSA levels part on what they insisted had to be planted. And the CSA army, besides Federal or any army were simply ravenous on the land.

How do you see them winning? At the beginning of the war, some of their older, more experienced leaders advised against it. They knew it couldn't be won.

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

I think you make a good point, The South did generate wealth, but only for the plantation owners and those industries that supported it.
That was the Achilles heel of the Southern economy. We have this idea that slaves only worked on plantations, when the reality is slaves were rented out to any business that needed labor.
There were a lot of Southerners who "went west" for better opportunities.
I do not see that changing while slavery persisted.

Okay, so my father's family of my Illinois Civil War ancestor on the Union side were farmers, but were relatively wealthy ones. My mother's Georgia/Confederate Civil War ancestors were also farmers, but were relatively poor, and did not own any slaves at all. They were, however successful enough on their 60 to 80 acre farms that they were not going to go elsewhere.

 

[JerryD]

That's a lot of what ifs.

Of course! And their could be millions more! That is the point I am trying to make. People who claim the CSA could not win assume that everything remains the same, but that is just a fallacy. There are literally millions of decisions/acts that could have gone another way. And you think that no combination could lead to CSA victory? That is pretty impressive hubris, if you ask me.

 

[wausaubob]

No. I would suggest you go back and read through the whole thread, because that's not at all what he's saying.

You may disagree and say the south could still have won because of X, Y, and Z, but then…aren't you really the one engaging in what ifs? After all, the south really did lose, and it wasn't even that close.

The odd thing about it is that US won the war in complete conquest of the Confederacy, and there still people imagining how the Confederacy might have won.
The US had more wealth, more people, domestic industry, the larger agriculture sector, and ship building facilities on the coast and on the internal rivers and the manpower to build more ship building wharves anywhere they were needed.
The imagining that the tactical brilliance of the Confederacy mattered more than obvious strategic gains of the US might be the best evidence that the Civil War was necessary and the result was worth the sacrifice.

 

[JerryD]

IF all the "what ifs" came true, perhaps the South would have won the war. But…. As it stands factually in history as we know it today - the South was NOT going to win the war.

There is one fact alone that was going to cause it to end. Lee's army was starving to death. At the end, the soldiers were only surviving on 500 calories a day. This is a known fact. It takes about 5,000 calories a day to sustain a fighting soldier in the field. Grants soldiers had that in the Eastern Theater. Whole units of Southern soldiers were already either leaving to go home or deserting to Union lines, simply for food. It really got to be that simple.

At the very end, Lee was in a tight pincer movement that he couldn't have gotten out of. He did the noble and right thing instead of continuing a years long guerrilla war that most people didn't want.

Without drastic and I mean drastic intervention, early on in the South, they simply did not have the raw mining power, the technology power or the male replacement power to keep going. They didn't have the agricultural replacement power and that was from some incredibly bad decisions on the higher CSA levels part on what they insisted had to be planted. And the CSA army, besides Federal or any army were simply ravenous on the land.

How do you see them winning? At the beginning of the war, some of their older, more experienced leaders advised against it. They knew it couldn't be won.

Again, you are assuming it had to be that way. We know in fact there was plenty of food in the south. Read about Sherman's march and you hear over and over how much food they found. The soldiers were living high on the hog. The problem was that the CSA had people who were horrible at managing the process of collecting the food and distributing it. If they had done a better job, Lee's army would not have been starving.

Don't get me wrong. The CSA were facing long odds. But a decent respect for the limitations of our understanding leads me to conclude that we can't know the unknowable. If things were different, a different result would occur. And I am not going to pretend that I can think of every possible change and know the result that every change would create, and anyone who claims they do possess this power needs to be examined for mental illness, because they are delusional. Its fine to have an opinion that one result was more likely than another (and I do think US victory was always the most likely result and the whole idea of going to war was a very stupid idea by CSA leaders), but its the certainty of knowledge that some claim that I object to.

 

[NH Civil War Gal]

Ah, I recognize the true nit picker. The position you really want to defend is, "you can't really know what would have happened."

There is a difference between saying "There is a slight chance between the South could win" and "There is NO chance the South could win."

But it isn't an important difference.

 

[damYankee]

Okay, so my father's family of my Illinois Civil War ancestor on the Union side were farmers, but were relatively wealthy ones. My mother's Georgia/Confederate Civil War ancestors were also farmers, but were relatively poor, and did not own any slaves at all. They were, however successful enough on their 60 to 80 acre farms that they were not going to go elsewhere.

Like you I have ancestors from both sides. Our Southern ancestors were "dirt poor" which in those days meant they own enough dirt to feed themselves and maybe trade/sell some on the side, but were never going to get rich.
But what about those people in the south who were not property owners?
What job opportunities were available to Southern unskilled white laborers when slave owners were the suppliers of laborers to any and every employer?

 

[JerryD]

Ah, I recognize the true nit picker. The position you really want to defend is, "you can't really know what would have happened."

There is a difference between saying "There is a slight chance between the South could win" and "There is NO chance the South could win."

But it isn't an important difference.

Well, we can quibble over the odds. I admit the south had the odds against them. But many underdogs have won wars in world history, and as others have noted, the prevailing wisdom in Europe at the outbreak of the war was that the CSA was simply too big to be conquered and occupied. So I dont think the odds were as long as some like to claim.

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

Like you I have ancestors from both sides. Our Southern ancestors were "dirt poor" which in those days meant they own enough dirt to feed themselves and maybe trade/sell some on the side, but were never going to get rich.
But what about those people in the south who were not property owners?
What job opportunities were available to Southern unskilled white laborers when slave owners were the suppliers of laborers to any and every employer?

Like you I have ancestors from both sides. Our Southern ancestors were "dirt poor" which in those days meant they own enough dirt to feed themselves and maybe trade/sell some on the side, but were never going to get rich.
But what about those people in the south who were not property owners?
What job opportunities were available to Southern unskilled white laborers when slave owners were the suppliers of laborers to any and every employer?

I agree with you, @damYankee. There had been a moderate exodus of poor Whites to the West since the 1840's, though, and most of them who were going to leave the South had probably already gone.