How close did the South come to winning?

I guess the professor is trying to pull certain battles out for this one, but I'm sure some of you have some ideas.

The chance the South had of winning any war was none.  The Confederacy had to win quickly and they needed to win the war in the Northern press and a foreign ally to do it. Really, no navy and no manufacturing. Missippi River closed in what 14 months? They couldn't hold any of the border states. 2/5ths of the men required to fight by the Southern 1862 conscrïption act never showed up, ever. In less than 3 years the Southern economy was shot. Southerners never stopped using Federal money. Northern armies moved through almost all of the Southern states pretty much at will, except for Virginia, (thanks to McLellan & Pope) and after 1863, they did that too. The South couldn't win the press, couldn't protectit's coast, win any foreign ally, nor could it do the one thing it had to do to win. Act as a country instead of 13 independent states. The idea of the Confederacy, killed the Confederacy. That's why we all pay Federal taxes today. As long as we're what iffin' How long would the CW have lasted if the Federal Generals that were running things in 1865 were running things in 1862? The army of the Potomac wouldn't have waited at Antetiam, or on the Penensula. Second Manassas wouldn't have happened. Neither would have Chancellorsville (might have ended on the first day). Stonewall wouldn't be a legend and neither would Lee. Think about it.

That is a very interesting question and I have to agree that for the reasons grumpy has mentioned the resources necessary to wage a successful war simply were were stacked in favor of the north.  Also, the strategic alliances that were forged by the North gave a decided advantage.

I remember reading around 1970 (I wish I still had it) the book "If the South Had Won The Civil War".  I don't remember a lot of the book but the pretext was that the South won and how they did it.  It is quite far fetched but it has Grant dying prior to Vicksburg which necessitated Jackson diverting his forces to Mississippi.  That's about all I can remember.

Grant could have died in Mexico and it would have made no difference and Jackson could have lived to surrender and it would have made no difference.

The reality is that the North held ALL the cards and only played about 60% of them.

Could the north have given up and gone home?  Maybe but it would have taken a vastly different political leadership and national psyche for that to happen.

Once the first shot was fired the result was pretty much a forgone conclusion.

So professor anybody who answered yes and gave you a reason - failed.

One thing has always made me wonder though, what if Lincoln had not issued the Emancipation Proclamation and Europe (particularly England and France) had recognized the CSA as a soverign nation and decided to support the Confederacy with arms and troops, what would have happened? Would that have been enough to turn the tide, especially before Sherman's march to the sea?

Well, England was having a prety good time selling arms to both sides and buying stuff from the North. I don't think France would ever have been able to decide. They were too busy elsewhere.  How would the Confederacy have gotten the stuff through the blockade? The US was the only country in the world with a functioning iron clad navy.

Big difference between the North and South. The North had to win, while the South only had to not lose. I figure the South sealed it's fate when Davis replaced Johnson with Hood as commander of the AoT.  

In the summer of 1864, Lee had Grant stalemated in front of Petersburg, while Sherman moved slowly toward Atlanta. Hard to say what the voters would have done, if Sherman was still stuck in front of Atlanta in November.

 

We talked about this on our drive to Bedford, and came to the conclusion that they couldn't have won, but their best chance may have been at Manassas.

They were close to the DC and the enemy was in a rout.  If they had taken the night and reformed and then pushed forward they may have gotten them to sue for peace.  

But at the same time we realize that they could have moved the government from DC to Philadelphia and then sacrifice Maryland while they regroup.  But in the end the overall advantages of the North would have won out.

Quote :

Once the first shot was fired the result was pretty much a forgone conclusion.

It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if Davis had told Pickens to cool down and let Anderson or the  Naval support ships for the resupply mission take the first shots.  Yes, Sumter commanded the harbor entrance, but by that time Beauregard could have neutralized the fort anytime he wanted to.

Quote :

GrumpyDave wrote : Well, England was having a prety good time selling arms to both sides and buying stuff from the North. I don't think France would ever have been able to decide. They were too busy elsewhere.  How would the Confederacy have gotten the stuff through the blockade? The US was the only country in the world with a functioning iron clad navy.

Dave,

Agreed, but I wonder if other countries who were sitting on the sideline but wanted Southern ctton may have entered the debate at that point. I do believe the South was destined to lose the conflict, but there were a number of times that the balance of the war could have shifted. Without an industrial base or actual allies helping in the fight and recognizing the CSA the South was never going to win but if that base and help had come.........

I disagree.  I think several factors contributed to the south losing the war.  First, they chose not to engage in total war.  More than likely, had total war occurred both times that Lee had invaded the north, then I beleive the will of the North to continue hostilities may have ceased.  In addition, if the South had united under a single commander for military engagements, then the chances of success increase dramatically.  There are a number of different things that the south did not control that would very well have turned the tide.  The Northwest Frontier didn't want to continue the war, but deft (and illegal) political manuevering both the Governor of Indianna kept them together.  Had the NW frontier states left, Lincoln would never have been reelected.  That would have forced the creation of some sort of treaty between the north and south.

Quote :

digger wrote : I disagree.  I think several factors contributed to the south losing the war.  First, they chose not to engage in total war.  More than likely, had total war occurred both times that Lee had invaded the north, then I beleive the will of the North to continue hostilities may have ceased.

Joseph,

By total war, I'm assuming you mean the burning and distruction that took place in the Valley and during Sherman's march to the sea, continuing into the Carolinas. I rather doubt that burning out a strip of land in western Maryland and another strip from the Virginia border to the Susquehanna River would have had much effect on the North's will to fight. I know the burning of Chambersburg, PA in 1864, certainly had no effect on the Northern war effort.

Now, if you are talking about the total war that was conducted by both sides in the western border states, like Kansas and Missouri, that's another kettle of fish. If that type of wanton murder and mayhem had been conducted on a grand scale, we'd be much like Iraq is today. (Read "April 1865, The Month that Saved America")

IMHO, the capture of Atlanta had about as much to do with Lincoln getting reelected as anything else. The voters could finally see the light at the end of the tunnel.

Interesting discussion.      

Bill,

Good call on Atlanta. Another what if is what if Sherman had not been able to capture Atlanta or Chattanooga for that matter? The south may still have lost but the war would have gone on much longer.

Guys,

A good portion of the Federal troops completed their three years of service during the winter and spring of 1864. I've often wondered what would have happened if all of them had taken their discharges and gone home. The Federal armies would have had to be rebuilt almost from scratch and I wonder how those new conscrïpts would have done against the Confederate veterans?

It has never ceased to amaze me that so many of the troops reenlisted "for the war". It wasn't like these guys had any illusions about what they were signing up for.

Yep. I am talking about real total war.  Just like the kind that occurred in the show me state.  I think that alone may have caused political panic, and brought the Northern public to a different conclusion.  In addition, if the south had reverted to geurilla warefare in 1864-5, it may have eventually created the defensive "victory" necessary for the South's independence.

Quote :

digger wrote :  If the south had reverted to geurilla warefare in 1864-5, it may have eventually created the defensive "victory" necessary for the South's independence.

Joseph,

I think what would have occured is twenty years of hell, no change in the final outcome and a country lost in a swamp of hate and distrust. As far as I'm concerned, we all owe a vote of thanks to R.E. Lee and U.S. Grant.

I like the old Fletcher Pratt history of the war, which points out that all of the advantages of the north -- indeed, the very idea of the north -- did not exist until someone acted on them.  In contrast to the south, which was at least united in defense of the right to secede, the north at the beginning was little more than a collection of interest groups.

The standard narrative of the war describes, essentially, a contest between Lincoln and Lee, with the saintly Lincoln searching and searching to find the right guy to bring the north's crushing superiority to bear on the gallant Lee.

In reality a whole diverse group of people stepped up at the beginning to pull the "north" together.  You had John Wool, commander of the Northern Department, working with the governors of New York and Massachussetts to raise troops at a time when the national government was cut off without communications.  You had Captain Meigs of the army and Lieutenant Porter of the Navy working with Seward behind the backs of the secretaries of War and Navy to hijack the Sumter relief force and send it to Pennsacola where it would do some good.  You had Lyon and the German community of St. Louis, the governors of Ohio and Indiana, all acting on their own initiative.  By no means the least, you had Charles Pomeroy Stone -- a southerner by inclination -- who, as IG of the DC militia, raised a military force to defend the capital when virtually no regular forces were available and most of the armed men in the area were for the south.

The south had a chance to win in the spring of 1861.  Thanks to a lot of people stepping up on their own, with little coordination, the Republic weathered the first few months.  After that, the machine pieced together by this motley collection of politicians, civil servants, officers, and men became a juggernaut.  After that the only chance the south had was with a foreign intervention that was never likely, and became increasingly less possible even if the political will had been there.

Please bear with me on my initial post as it has no references.  Our country is weary of hearing about Katrina.  To make a long story short, that old gal took my references, among a whole lot of other things.  

Early in the summer of 1863 the Federal authorities were truly shocked and alarmed to find out the terms of service of more than half of the volunteer units currently in the field would expire before the end of the next calendar year. At the same time this discovery was made, the Federal Army was accepting what were generally considered to be inferior replacements.  The addition of these less than desirable replacements, combined with the anticipated loss of more than half of their already trained, experienced, and mostly dependable troops, raised a profoundly serious concern among the upper most echelons of Federal command.  It shook them to their very core and they set about trying to resolve the dilemma.  

At the end of the 1863 campaign season, with the Vicksburg and Gettysburg victories in hand, the Federal government put tremendous pressure on these veterans to reenlist before their term of military service terminated. During the winter of 1863 there was an infusion of orchestrated propaganda designed to cause these soon to be departed three-year volunteers to remain in military service. They were exposed to a variety of allurements. All kinds of tantalizing inducements were paraded before them. These were a mix of patriotism and greed. Bounties of slightly more than $400.00 were paid to veterans who decided to extend their enlistment. In addition to the bounties, they were offered 30 day furloughs.

As part of this strategy, orders came down in 1863 that authorized the wearing of Service Bars for those enlisted veterans who volunteered to extend their tenure of military service for "three years or the war." If two-thirds of the men in the same regiment agreed to extend their military service for the duration, their regiment would not be disbanded. Furthermore, the regiment would not only be saved, but have the word "Veteran" added to its name and the word “Volunteer” eliminated.   If all of this came about, the regiment’s members would have been allowed to take their furloughs at the same time.

This resulted in the soldiers who had decided to sign on for the duration attempting to convince their buddies to remain in the military service with them.   It must have been a time of solemn deliberation and intense soul searching. In the end, more than 200,000 of them volunteered to continue their military service. These men subsequently became known as Veteran Volunteers and are the ones seen in period photographs wearing service bars.

 

--Last edited by Curtis Makamson on 2007-04-17 12:13:57 --

Mr. Makamson, I think you bring up a great example of the sort of organizational effort that went into the ultimate victory of the North.  I'd like to learn more about the veteran volunteer program.  From what I've read, someone in the Treasury Department came up with the idea.  It must have involved a fair amount of analysis -- they had to figure out how many folks they were targeting, how many would likely take the offer, and what kind of bonus the government could afford.  After that, they had to structure the bond issues necessary to pay for it all, on top of everything else.

You make a good point about the struggle involved, within units and sometimes within individuals, over the decision to reenlist, or not.  A study I no longer have the reference for (with less excuse than you, I'm afraid) indicated that higher rates of enlistment occurred with units that had more time to serve.  Those whose enlistments were almost up tended to go home.

With that in mind, here are a series of excerpts from a book I read late last year, edited by Mary Ann Andersen, The Civil War Diary of Allen Morgan Geer, Cosmos Press, New York, 1977

12-06-63
An order relating to reenlistments was read to the Div.  Great inducements were offered.

12-16-63
Lt. Evans Commenced enlisting men for the Veteran Service.  Some 30 mustered 3 in Co. C

12-23-63
Exercised in composition extensively.  Col. Bradley gets rigid on the orderlies.  It dampens the ardor of my Veteran Scheme.... The old soldiers seem growing more sociable in view of anticipated pleasures when relieved from service in June next.

12-26-63
Gen. Force assures us that when ¾ of the aggregate of a company reenlist it goes North at once.  Co. C has ½ present.

12-29-63
Got Co. books & papers into shape.  Am watching with interest the fate of the $300 clause in Congress.... Have about made up my mind not to reenlist for the present, but to serve my term, go home free, and remain a man until another sacrifice is needed.

01-02-64
An order from the war depart. is issued giving no bounty but one hundred dollars to veterans enlisting after Jan. 5th 1864.  All drills are laid by til Jan. 6th.  T.J. Johnson & I get moss for our bed and repair our tent.

01-06-64
Another strong call made for volunteers in the Veteran Service.  January 5th is extended by the millitary.  Strong appeals are made from the head of the government down.  Co. D by the aid of 3 men from Co. I gets its complement.  The old 20th is quite lukewarm and yet they are deeply interested in the cause.  Their enthusiasm has simply been deadened by battle decimation of numbers, hardships, ill usage etc.  Gen. Force makes a big speech on the subject at dress parade.

01-07-64
Another call is made for veterans.  Had really hoped that the thing was closed up feeling that my circumstances would not justify my reenlistment.

01-08-64
A paper was presented for the names in Co. C. who would reenlist in order to secure a furlough for the Co. as an organization.  Without a moments hesitation signed my name by hard work secured all but 2.

01-09-64
.... The regiment lacked but 30 men tonight.

01-10-64
... The regt. forms without arms and visits the three Co’s behind  Officers make speeches etc. ... Co. C. has 21 veterans its report elligible was but 19.  The 1st Regt. full is to go North first accompanied by the Brig. Band.  The 45th has but ten to raise.  The 20th 20.  We labor shout and argue 4 Lieuts. fill the bill.  Bradley reaches Hd Qrs. three minutes after the 45th O.K.  Bonfires excitement & music prevail.

01-11-64
All the veterans are in good spirits speculating on their pleasures on furloughs etc.

A trend towards homesickness after the veteran furloughs are over and they've seen home once again is not universal, but still a strong theme. In fact it is timeless.