Why Could the South Have Won the Civil War

[Caecus]

Avoiding 20/.20 hindsight, I would have bet on the South to win the American Civil War. It's only because of Lincoln and his titanic personality that won the Civil War. 

[Franz Von Dietrich]

Um no? The fact is the North used the Railroad, the telegrapth to have an advantage over the South. The South wasn't industralized, unlike the North

 

The South didn't invest into these new things, which gave them the short end of the deal

 

Even though, Lincoln did have a part with his influence.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~ewdow/Politics%20116/aftermath-6.html

[Caecus]

Um no? The fact is the North used the Railroad, the telegrapth to have an advantage over the South. The South wasn't industralized, unlike the North

 

The South didn't invest into these new things, which gave them the short end of the deal

 

Even though, Lincoln did have a part with his influence.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~ewdow/Politics%20116/aftermath-6.html

 

The South had a long-standing history of military tradition. The best generals, officers, and soldiers were from the south. The south was naturally militarized. Most of the north never seen a rifle in their life up until the war. The only reason why the railroad and telegraphs and factories actually played a part was because the Civil War was the first real instance of modern warfare, where conscription, industrial power, and destruction of civilian infrastructure were the goals of wars, not just to do battle and force a surrender. 

[Franz Von Dietrich]

The South had a long-standing history of military tradition. The best generals, officers, and soldiers were from the south. The south was naturally militarized. Most of the north never seen a rifle in their life up until the war. The only reason why the railroad and telegraphs and factories actually played a part was because the Civil War was the first real instance of modern warfare, where conscription, industrial power, and destruction of civilian infrastructure were the goals of wars, not just to do battle and force a surrender. 

So, you're telling me just because they were "militarzied" they should've won? That's kinda not true, I mean the Northern Army was better equiped than the Southern Army, the Southern Army couldn't even give all of its soldiers uniforms.

Edited November 12, 2015 by Francisco Franco Bah

[Fox Fire]

Avoiding 20/.20 hindsight, I would have bet on the South to win the American Civil War. It's only because of Lincoln and his titanic personality that won the Civil War. 

And the fact that the north was far more industrialized...... 

Better trained generals doesn't mean much when you're outnumbered by howitzers, better equipment and massive production capacity. It's like the difference between ISIS and the United States. 

[Caecus]

And the fact that the north was far more industrialized...... 

Better trained generals doesn't mean much when you're outnumbered by howitzers, better equipment and massive production capacity. It's like the difference between ISIS and the United States. 

 

Yeah, but again, we are really thinking of this as total war, rather than the norm for warfare before. Up until the Civil War, all wars were a couple of battles where defeating field armies forced surrender. And there are a lot of battles where the Union troops outnumbered the Confederacy 2 to 1 and still lost. 1st Battle of Manassess Junction is a perfect example of what people were expecting the war to be like.

 

There are also a variety of other reasons why people thought the South could have won. 

1. British support

2. Moral of causes

3. Stronger international economic ties

[Fox Fire]

Yeah, but again, we are really thinking of this as total war, rather than the norm for warfare before. Up until the Civil War, all wars were a couple of battles where defeating field armies forced surrender. And there are a lot of battles where the Union troops outnumbered the Confederacy 2 to 1 and still lost. 1st Battle of Manassess Junction is a perfect example of what people were expecting the war to be like.

 

There are also a variety of other reasons why people thought the South could have won. 

1. British support

2. Moral of causes

3. Stronger international economic ties

On the note of support, the north basically had all foreign support. The CSA was never recognized by anyone. 

[Caecus]

On the note of support, the north basically had all foreign support. The CSA was never recognized by anyone. 

 

There is a strict difference between "Foreign support" and recognition of state. The North didn't have "All foreign support." They had all foreign neutrality. If the South had won a couple more battles when Lee adventured North, there was the entire possibility that England would support Southern independence and international recognition. Naturally, there are other factors which also played a role (Europe was anti-slavery, they were distracted in Poland and Denmark, and the US is on the other side of the world). But the British were generally favorable to the Southern cause. 

 

Edit: enough to sell them a state-of-the-art warship which wrecked havoc on Northern shipping and squished the standard Union gunboat. 

Edited November 12, 2015 by Caecus

[Franz Von Dietrich]

There is a strict difference between "Foreign support" and recognition of state. The North didn't have "All foreign support." They had all foreign neutrality. If the South had won a couple more battles when Lee adventured North, there was the entire possibility that England would support Southern independence and international recognition. Naturally, there are other factors which also played a role (Europe was anti-slavery, they were distracted in Poland and Denmark, and the US is on the other side of the world). But the British were generally favorable to the Southern cause. 

 

Edit: enough to sell them a state-of-the-art warship which wrecked havoc on Northern shipping and squished the standard Union gunboat. 

And there's a strong difference on who is more techonolgical advance in terms of warfare and supplies. 

 

 

 

Anyways, the French and British governments had no interest in the South, as they didn't need a "cotton" supplier, due to them both finding superior and more effective source of cotton in other parts of the world. So, your point on "had strong international economic ties" is very invalid.

 

Furthermore; the British Government payed the American Government after the Civil War in reps for what those ships they had supplied to the South caused in damage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_and_the_American_Civil_War

Edited November 12, 2015 by Francisco Franco Bah

[Caecus]

And there's a strong difference on who is more techonolgical advance in terms of warfare and supplies. 

 

 

 

Anyways, the French and British governments had no interest in the South, as they didn't need a "cotton" supplier, due to them both finding superior and more effective source of cotton in other parts of the world. So, your point on "had strong international economic ties" is very invalid.

 

Furthermore; the British Government payed the American Government after the Civil War in reps for what those ships they had supplied to the South caused in damage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_and_the_American_Civil_War

 

I would agree with the statement that cotton elsewhere, particularly from Ali's Egypt, sealed the economic fate of the South. But the military objectives and civilian moral for each side did indeed favor the South. The war in the North never had overwhelming popular support, and as the war ground on and the stress of the war found itself into daily activities, the North had to be held together by a very incredible person to not conclude a separate peace, which was the objective of the Confederate South. 

[Jose Rodriguez III]

The population in the North dwindled the south (22 million vs 9 million, and nearly half of that 9 were enslaved blacks)

The North was technologically superior to the south (Superior Navy and Railroad logistics allowed for faster and better supply lines)

 

The Moral cause of maintaining the union I would argue was also far more powerful than the cause to keep slavery. If anything southern liberty was a far stronger cause than slavery was(and no this isn't one of those lost cause of the south posts). Though maintaining power over their slaves was a factor.

 

The British aid to the CSA was minimal and was never going to fully enable the CSA to properly function. The Union Navy blockaded much of the south and forced the use of Blockade runners in order to make deliveries, not even counting the fact that the southern economy was in freefall over the mass amounts of money the CSA printed out leading to hyperinflation and rampant starvation among southern whites as the war progressed.

 

When we also look at the battles that defined the civil war, the turning points, you'll see that the Union won most of them. Shiloh, Fort Henry, Fair Oaks, Antietam, Gettysburg, Chattanooga ect...

 

Even if the south had won, at best, it would have been Pyrrhic, more or less leaving the North alone as it rebuilt itself, post starvation and inflation. Even taken that into consideration, the growing anti slavery sentiment would have forced the south to reconsider its stance on the matter, and border states just as they had done during the civil war would probably be seeking making deals with the Union for re-entry when faced with the possibility of their economies shifting or failing without support. 

Edited November 12, 2015 by Jose Rodriguez III

[Buorhann]

On the note of support, the north basically had all foreign support. The CSA was never recognized by anyone. 

 

Source behind this claim?

[Buorhann]

 

Even taken that into consideration, the growing anti slavery sentiment would have forced the south to reconsider its stance on the matter, and border states just as they had done during the civil war would probably be seeking making deals with the Union for re-entry when faced with the possibility of their economies shifting or failing without support. 

 

That is not the discussion.  The discussion is how the south could've won.  Not the aftermath.

[Fox Fire]

Source behind this claim?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America

[Buorhann]

I see.

 

However, do they not teach you in school to stop relying on wikipedia articles for sources?

[Fox Fire]

I see.

 

However, do they not teach you in school to stop relying on wikipedia articles for sources?

They do that because it makes research so easy. The whole "wikipedia is unreliable" is just an ignorant excuse to discredit a great tool. 

[Buorhann]

They do that because it makes research so easy. The whole "wikipedia is unreliable" is just an ignorant excuse to discredit a great tool. 

 

No, that is completely false and ignorant thinking.  Anybody can edit wiki articles and the source claims on wiki articles can be led astray.  Context from wiki articles to the source it comes from can also be different.

 

It has nothing to do with "ease" of research.

[Fox Fire]

No, that is completely false and ignorant thinking.  Anybody can edit wiki articles and the source claims on wiki articles can be led astray.  Context from wiki articles to the source it comes from can also be different.

 

It has nothing to do with "ease" of research.

Nope. That right there is exactly what I'm talking about. Sure, anyone can edit a wiki page, but every page is being constantly watched by contributors and any nonsense is easily removed. Further more, when reading a wikipedia article, you will notice that everything stated will be followed by a clickable number. That number is a citation for where that information came from, which should be taken into account when reading any article anywhere. The rules regarding citations and how they can be used are also laid out. If something doesn't have a citation, you will usually see [citation needed]. There are also various other bracketed referenced such as [not in citation given], etc. It's also quite common to see discussions about whether a particular source is usable or reliable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contributing_to_Wikipedia

Edited November 12, 2015 by Fox Fire

[Franz Von Dietrich]

No, that is completely false and ignorant thinking.  Anybody can edit wiki articles and the source claims on wiki articles can be led astray.  Context from wiki articles to the source it comes from can also be different.

 

It has nothing to do with "ease" of research.

Is that why you're brainwashed by the idea's that Vietnam was "maybe" a bad war? 

 

Wikipedia is a great source to use, everything in it is cited, you can dig deeper to even find the evidence backing statements in articles.

[Caecus]

The population in the North dwindled the south (22 million vs 9 million, and nearly half of that 9 were enslaved blacks)

The North was technologically superior to the south (Superior Navy and Railroad logistics allowed for faster and better supply lines)

 

I am not disagreeing here. Purely from the perspective of modern warfare, it is obvious that the North would have won. 

 

 

The Moral cause of maintaining the union I would argue was also far more powerful than the cause to keep slavery. If anything southern liberty was a far stronger cause than slavery was(and no this isn't one of those lost cause of the south posts). Though maintaining power over their slaves was a factor.

 

I meant to add an "e" at the end of Moral. lol. whoops. The cause of the north was entirely based on keeping the Union together. Abolition was when the war was almost won, and even then, abolition was considered politically extreme. What I mean in terms of morale is tightly related to the military objectives. The objective of the north had to be conquest, meaning the North had to invade, control, and force the South to return to the Union. The objective of the south is the creation of a separate peace, to force the north to recognize the lost cause of trying to pull the south back into the union by defeating the union militarily on their own lands. 

 

The difference between the two is a political ideology vs. defending their own homeland. While people like hearing freedom and security and union, when you put in your population to the meat grinder for that cause, even the most stoic have to ask themselves if it is worth it. In contrast, when you see union soldiers coming over the hill and want to take your lands and property, fighting for your livelihood is a stronger cause. 

 

 

The British aid to the CSA was minimal and was never going to fully enable the CSA to properly function. The Union Navy blockaded much of the south and forced the use of Blockade runners in order to make deliveries, not even counting the fact that the southern economy was in freefall over the mass amounts of money the CSA printed out leading to hyperinflation and rampant starvation among southern whites as the war progressed.

 

This is speculation on my part, but I would argue that the British might have had stronger aid to the south if it looked like the South was winning. 

 

 

When we also look at the battles that defined the civil war, the turning points, you'll see that the Union won most of them. Shiloh, Fort Henry, Fair Oaks, Antietam, Gettysburg, Chattanooga ect...

 

These battles are turning points because these battles occur at critical logistic junctions which command the surrounding area. With the exception of Antietam, Gettsyburg, and most of Lee's travels north, all of these battles are turning points because it allows the union to control certain areas during their conquest. If they lost the battle, that wouldn't matter. They would have to retry again until they achieved victory. The siege of Vicksburg was a siege because the union had to control that location in order to progress with the conquest. The south defends, the north invades. 

 

Even if the south had won, at best, it would have been Pyrrhic, more or less leaving the North alone as it rebuilt itself, post starvation and inflation. Even taken that into consideration, the growing anti slavery sentiment would have forced the south to reconsider its stance on the matter, and border states just as they had done during the civil war would probably be seeking making deals with the Union for re-entry when faced with the possibility of their economies shifting or failing without support. 

 

This is speculation, but I could see that it could be true. I highly doubt that the south would have reconsidered its stance on slavery though, not without union troops stationed there during the Reconstruction period. 

 

My point is, the north had a lot of advantages towards winning a war of attrition. The larger population, the industries, logistics, stronger economy. Anyone today, with full experience in modern war, can say that in 20/20 hindsight the Union would have won and that victory was inevitable. My argument is that at the beginning of the war, there was the entire possibility that the South could have won, and there was the entire possibility that the North could have just given up bringing the south back. My argument is that Lincoln, by force of character and ability, was the very force that kept the Union force to continue the war to return the South back to the Union. 

Edited November 12, 2015 by Caecus

[Lannan13]

Avoiding 20/.20 hindsight, I would have bet on the South to win the American Civil War. It's only because of Lincoln and his titanic personality that won the Civil War. 

Well not necessarially.

 

The only way the South could have won the Civil War is if the North just gave up. There was Gen. McClelan that wanted peace, but that was impossible to happen. This would be the only realistic way they could have won.

 

Brittian and France would not have gotten involved since if the South won the Civil War then the CSA would have exspanded South into Mexico which was French land at the time. The CSA was already involving themselves in destablizing movements in Mexico so they could move in. If the South won the British feared that the North would invade Canada and that was one thing that Britian didn't like. There was really no incentive for British involvement since their populace was strongly against slavery and any move to help the South would out British Parliment's current seats. Britian could easily get their cotton from Egypt or India so that wasn't really an issue for the matter here.

[Lannan13]

The only way the South could have won is if they kept their momentum in the first few months of the war. As the war stretched on, the South ran out of arms and munitions. They ran out of supplies.

With the introduction of the minie ball in the North, the South simply had no chance.

No amount of courage or bravery can stand up to an army who can kill you more efficiently from farther away.

And with the Henry and Spencer repeating rifles that were developed in 1860, if the war took much longer then the North would have had more time to distribute them to troops.

While the South certainly took less casualties than the North, they simply couldn't afford to take them!

Well another thing you have to factor in is that the Union leadership got better. When the war broke out the Union Generals were incomitent except for Grant and Sherman who eventually came to dominate the later parts of the war. Who would've known it would take a drunk to the win the war.

[Thalmor]

From what I read, the general consensus among most historians is that the Confederation States of America had no chance of winning whatsoever (especially after 1863).

 

The south had 2 main advantages:

 

1 - Experienced, competent leaders

2 - Better overall quality among individual infantrymen

 

The 1st pointer is accepted fact, but 2nd one is one I personally recognize that I haven't seen anyone else mention in favor or against. I get this idea from the statistics: The United States suffered a third more causalities (if you add together both dead and wounded) than the Confederation States did. The way of life and the general geography in the South also lead to the men being overall tougher.

 

Still, in spite of this, that had no chance at winning: The North had more railways, more industry, and a higher population. The Confederation was constantly blockaded as well, making things even harder.

 

Of course, this is all probably in hindsight. I'm sure your average person in late 1861 could see the war go either way.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Why Could the South Have Won the Civil War

Is the question why or how?

[Speaker Faris Wheeler]

Why tf are people getting their info from Wikipedia in the first place, and not actual trustworthy, legit sites....... !@#$ing madness