Why Could the South Have Won the Civil War

[Buorhann]

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

 

I can't wait till they get into a university and use a Wikipedia article as a source.  I would take the time to explain it to those two folks why Wikipedia isn't a legit way of citing a statement, but that would just take the original topic way off course.  However, on the flip side, it's not like this topic demands a strict source anyways - so it'll inevitably be a pointless argument.

[LordRahl2]

Not the worst debate on the forums here. Yes, it is within the realm of possible that British could have entered into the war on the side of the South and it is possible that such an event would have changed the outcome.

 

If you would like to read an excellent and modern book on the subject then I recommend: http://www.amazon.com/World-Fire-Britains-Crucial-American/dp/0375756965

 

I quible with some of her stuff but it is still well written and very applicable.

 

Also, wiki is fine for background usually but it is not a source to be quoted.

[Lannan13]

I can't wait till they get into a university and use a Wikipedia article as a source.  I would take the time to explain it to those two folks why Wikipedia isn't a legit way of citing a statement, but that would just take the original topic way off course.  However, on the flip side, it's not like this topic demands a strict source anyways - so it'll inevitably be a pointless argument.

I'm at a college and you won't believe how many people actually use wikipeadia in their papers though they are warned by the Professors.

[Buorhann]

I'm at a college and you won't believe how many people actually use wikipeadia in their papers though they are warned by the Professors.

 

No, I believe it.

 

I'm almost done with my degree and my significant other is a professor with a doctorate in Biological Sciences.  5+ years of doing research papers.  We have STACKS of papers in our place due to her job ( She has to keep them for 5 years in case a student contests a grade ).

[Aesir]

The only way the South could have won the war would have been to survive.  If Lee hadn't invaded the Union and stuck to defending Virginia and if General Johnston in Georgia hadn't been replaced, the South would have won the war because Lincoln would have lost the election due to the loss of Sherman's army in the Battle of Atlanta and the fact that the South stayed on this side of the border.  Now I come to this conclusion because Lee only lost when he left Confederate soil, if he had stayed in the South he could have probably taken the North.  As for General Johnston, he was the only Confederate General to beat Sherman, but was replaced for refusing to fight Sherman on Sherman's terms.  Whenever Sherman actually fought a pitched battle with Johnston, Johnston won.

[LordRahl2]

The only way the South could have won the war would have been to survive. If Lee hadn't invaded the Union and stuck to defending Virginia and if General Johnston in Georgia hadn't been replaced, the South would have won the war because Lincoln would have lost the election due to the loss of Sherman's army in the Battle of Atlanta and the fact that the South stayed on this side of the border. Now I come to this conclusion because Lee only lost when he left Confederate soil, if he had stayed in the South he could have probably taken the North. As for General Johnston, he was the only Confederate General to beat Sherman, but was replaced for refusing to fight Sherman on Sherman's terms. Whenever Sherman actually fought a pitched battle with Johnston, Johnston won.

Improbable. At the operational and strategic level the ability of generals fades. A defensive southern force would have faced the culmination of the, albeit modified, anaconda plan and faced a scenario where the north shifted to deliberate siege warfare.

 

Although defenders have some advantage in the defense sieges basically pit numbers and material against each other - the South would have, and did, lose those contests.

 

The South taking the offensive may have been a mistake, however, it was irrelevant at that point. The choices were stay defensive and lose or take the offense and lose.

Edited November 16, 2015 by LordRahl2

[Redael]

Screw your old time north vs sour thinkin there's also the west and the east who were both very capable of winnin the war, my ancestors fought for the Central of the country, but no, apparently north and south are the only directions anyone cares about

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

And please for clarity, use the MLA style of citation for all sources.  Hypothetical Internet Arguments demand it!

 

And lets be real here guys, we have already have the answer for over 20 years.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOoXwxqeVzg

Edited November 16, 2015 by Sweeeeet Ronny D

[Lannan13]

And please for clarity, use the MLA style of citation for all sources.  Hypothetical Internet Arguments demand it!

 

And lets be real here guys, we have already have the answer for over 20 years.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOoXwxqeVzg

Well since this is a History debate the proper source format would actually be Chicago/Turbian Format.

[Emmad]

I just want to point out some things about British support for the South since it seems to be a popular theme on "why" the South could've won.

 

Most support in the UK for the Confederacy was with the high members of the British political and social establishment, the common people in general favored the Union. Lincoln even sent letters of thanks to groups of the working class that voiced their support for the Union. Besides this the US sent threats to the UK (mostly empty given the fact that our focus was here at home) but it helped cause the Brits to think twice. He sent the grandson of John Adams and son of John Quincy Adams (both former presidents) to the UK as ambassador. His task was solely to make the British government understand that they had colonies and possessions all over the globe and the US was growing in power, this was mainly the result of the UK supplying the Confederates with 2 warships. It didn't however stop them from supplying scores of blockade runners as that wasn't seen as a breech in neutrality. 

 

In the end overall popular support for the Union and the risk of all-out war with the United States, including... "an invasion of Canada, a full scale American attack on British shipping interests worldwide, an end to American grain shipments that were providing a large part of the British food supply, and an end to British sales of machinery and supplies to the US", were enough to keep the Brits out of it. It is also worth noting the British only considered joining if the French (who were engaged in Mexico) joined, the British themselves also had concerns over the rise of Napoleon III and his imperialist ambitions. 

Edited November 22, 2015 by Emmad

[LordRahl2]

Most support in the UK for the Confederacy was with the high members of the British political and social establishment, the common people in general favored the Union. 

 

Emmm, "most"?  51% or something?  There was some pretty strong opposition to the war and a significant popular British desire, particularly in certain industrial areas, for Britain to intervene.

 

I know of no polling or anything on the issue.  I would not quibble since there is no data that 60 or so %, if asked, may have opposed intervention.  So although most might be technically correct that was pretty weak reasoning.

 

Also remember that the cotton production did shift to places like N. Africa but that was not instantaneous.  There was real economic pain for British individuals and the for the British State.

 

Britain was relatively close to intervening if just to lift the blockade in the early war years - say '62.

 

Also can you source your claim that Britain only intended intervention if it could do so with the French?

Edited November 22, 2015 by LordRahl2

[Fox Fire]

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

Because wikipedia is an extremely useful tool that is almost always accurate. It isn't so popular because it's a shit website, but quite the opposite. Refer to previous comment.

 

I can't wait till they get into a university and use a Wikipedia article as a source.  I would take the time to explain it to those two folks why Wikipedia isn't a legit way of citing a statement, but that would just take the original topic way off course.  However, on the flip side, it's not like this topic demands a strict source anyways - so it'll inevitably be a pointless argument.

I already pointed out why it is a reliable source. If you disagree, I encourage you to point out what information was wrong, why it was wrong and offer a more accurate, "legit" source. 

Edited November 22, 2015 by Fox Fire

[Moreau]

If the south would get heavy Tigertanks and heavy bombers they would won