Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Could the South Have Won the War?
NY Times Disunion ^ | March 16, 2015 | Terry L. Jones

Posted on 03/17/2015 8:14:26 AM PDT by iowamark

By March 1865, it was obvious to all but the most die-hard Confederates that the South was going to lose the war. Whether that loss was inevitable is an unanswerable question, but considering various “what if” scenarios has long been a popular exercise among historians, novelists and Civil War buffs...

Perhaps the most common scenario centers on the actions of Gen. Robert E. Lee...

What many fail to recognize is that Northerners were just as committed to winning as the Southerners. Some saw it as a war to free the slaves, while others fought to ensure that their republican form of government survived. Northerners believed that America was the world’s last great hope for democracy, and if the South destroyed the Union by force, that light of liberty might be extinguished forever. Lincoln once said the North must prove “that popular government is not an absurdity. We must settle this question now, whether in a free government the minority have the right to break up the government whenever they choose. If we fail it will go far to prove the incapability of the people to govern themselves.”

The South may have been fighting to preserve a way of life and to protect its perceived constitutional rights, but so was the North. If the Southern people kept fighting even after the devastating defeats at Gettysburg, Vicksburg and Chattanooga, why should we not believe the North would have kept on fighting even if the Confederates had won Gettysburg, Vicksburg and Chattanooga? The fact is that both sides were equally brave and equally dedicated to their cause. Commitment and morale being the same, the stronger side prevailed.

(Excerpt) Read more at opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: History; Military/Veterans
KEYWORDS: chattanooga; civilwar; gettysburg; greatestpresident; poormansfight; proslavery; revisionism; revisionist; revisionists; richmanswar; vicksburg
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 301-314 next last
To: corkoman; Cry if I Wanna

On a more historical bent and without science fiction I recommend as “alternate histories:”

Newt Gingrich & William Fortschen’s civil war trilogy see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettysburg:_A_Novel_of_the_Civil_War

Or Peter Tsouas’ civil war trilogy: the 3rd volume of which was just published.

http://www.amazon.com/Britannias-Fist-Civil-Alternate-History/dp/1574888234


61 posted on 03/17/2015 8:52:19 AM PDT by GreyFriar (Spearhead - 3rd Armored Division 75-78 & 83-87)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: central_va
You are south hating bigot. Let me tell what the North would be with out the South, A FULLY COMMUNIST DICTATORSHIP.

iirc, in Turtledove's books, Lincoln was not assassinated and became a Red.

62 posted on 03/17/2015 8:52:30 AM PDT by don-o (He will not share His glory and He will NOT be mocked! Blessed be the name of the Lord forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: iowamark
Lincoln once said the North must prove “that popular government is not an absurdity. We must settle this question now, whether in a free government the minority have the right to break up the government whenever they choose. If we fail it will go far to prove the incapability of the people to govern themselves.”

Different circumstances today, but the "incapability of the people to govern themselves" is definitely the issue of the day.

63 posted on 03/17/2015 8:52:38 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KC_Conspirator

Sam Houston was a wise man. He felt that the rights of the states were being infringed upon but obviously felt that it was foolish to engage in a war when diplomacy was available.

Lincoln did reach out to Houston to find an agreement but the war had already started and his loyalties were with the south despite his disagreement with the war. His son was killed fighting in the war.

One of many good men on both sides.


64 posted on 03/17/2015 8:53:04 AM PDT by cripplecreek ("For by wise guidance you can wage your war")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: central_va

“A FULLY COMMUNIST DICTATORSHIP”

The North would have been as we are now but years earlier. We are socialist, we are tyrannical, and we have communists at the helm.


65 posted on 03/17/2015 8:53:37 AM PDT by CodeToad (Islam should be outlawed and treated as a criminal enterprise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
If not for Gettysburg, it is quite possible the South would have won.

Gettysburg or not, Vicksbugh still falls. The South is still divided. Grant still advances in the west. The blockade continues. International recognition is still not forthcoming. And the South still loses. Maybe not in April 1865 but certainly not long after.

66 posted on 03/17/2015 8:53:50 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

Not without coal and steel they weren’t.....


67 posted on 03/17/2015 8:57:00 AM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously-you won't live through it anyway-Enjoy Yourself ala Louis Prima)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stremba

Of course Lee and every confederate general dream would have been a quick victory to end it but realistically he saw that if the high casualties and a prolonged war could make it political then they had a chance at a truce. You’re looking at it in hindsight that the Union didn’t falter and the war of attrition (wearing out the politicians) embolden many in the North and it did but the Anaconda plan and the determination of the North despite the horrific casualties made the attempt of wearing out the “politicans” futile. That’s a fact


68 posted on 03/17/2015 8:58:20 AM PDT by Bigtigermike (D)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
If Great Britain had allied with the Confederacy

Great Britain would never ally itself with a country with the institution of slavery and to many Southerners were to proud to give it up even if it meant they would win.
69 posted on 03/17/2015 8:59:32 AM PDT by Kartographer ("We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: central_va
With ancestors on both sides of that conflict, and after having lived most of my life south of the Mason-Dixon line, my take on the "failed state" comment had nothing to do with body counts. IMHO, if the Confederacy had successfully repelled the Union long enough (and won at Gettysburg), they would have forced northern politicians to declare a quasi-peace, but the South would have never become a successful nation. Slavery, the cornerstone of the Confederate constitution, cannot operate an industrial economy. It could never achieve today's high tech accomplishments, and therefore would always be an economic failure.

Please note that I have not said anything about the inhabitants of the South or indulged in any bigoted statements. Slavery would have been as much a blockade to progress as the hatred we see in the Middle East. Different sources, but the same outcome.

Harry Turtledove's alternative history series on the subject make for useful reading. Not gospel, but interesting reading.

70 posted on 03/17/2015 9:00:25 AM PDT by Pecos (What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

“What if” the years preceding the war had not seen massive influxes of Irish and German immigrants to the North — who had no understanding of or commitment to the Consitution?

The manpower avialible for the norther invasion would have been cut drmatically (there was an entire corps of German immigrants who barely spoke English) — and those fighting would have had greter reservations about the idea of invading soverieng states.


71 posted on 03/17/2015 9:02:06 AM PDT by BenLurkin (The above is not a statement of fact. It is either satire or opinion. Or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

I believe that it was possible but it would have required a change of tactics that would have been dishonorable in the minds of most of the military leaders of the day. It would have required the intentional destruction of forces of the North. Not just winning battles, but the willful and deliberate pursuit and killing of retreating forces.


72 posted on 03/17/2015 9:02:55 AM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: central_va

What party controlled the south throughout history, only recently losing control?

Where did we get the term “Yellow Dog?”


73 posted on 03/17/2015 9:04:07 AM PDT by Regal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: driftless2

haha Shelby / Ken Burns. I love those. My wife and daughters tease me. Netflix suggestions- “since you watched the most boring documentary ever, you may also be interested in the second most boring documentary ever...”


74 posted on 03/17/2015 9:04:14 AM PDT by getitright (If you call this HOPE, can we give despair a shot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

The American Civil War might have been completely unnecessary. The institution of slavery was becoming economically unfeasible. Lincoln could have negotiated with the Southern States to return to the Union and purchase every slave in the south for much less than human and economic cost of the American Civil War. The 160 years of history would have been entirely different. The world would have been different. All of that energy that was wasted in killing and destruction could have been used to build and grow.


75 posted on 03/17/2015 9:04:21 AM PDT by citizen352 ( Conspiracy theory coincidencs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

The wild card is the population of the north losing its will. It’s why I made the Vietnam comparison.

But you could be right.

Have you ever read “Guns of the South” by Harry Turtledove. Fascinating read and the only book of his I REALLY like.


76 posted on 03/17/2015 9:05:57 AM PDT by cuban leaf (The US will not survive the obama presidency. The world may not either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

My opinion is the Confederacy died when Stonewall Jackson died. With Jackson, Gettysburg turns out differently and the North would have been more agreeable to ending the war.


77 posted on 03/17/2015 9:07:09 AM PDT by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners. And to the NSA trolls, FU)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625
Slaveholders needed to expand Westward because that was where new states were being formed, and new congressional seats being created. To maintain a viable presence in Congress the slavery interests had to get their share of those new seats.
78 posted on 03/17/2015 9:08:14 AM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: central_va

And the slavery economy is about the closest thing to pure communism that has ever hit these shores. Close to communism, and distant from capitalism.

Actually it was northern intervention that saved the south from it’s communist self.

You’re welcome.


79 posted on 03/17/2015 9:09:41 AM PDT by Regal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

When that reprobate General Sickles moved his men out of position at Cemetery Ridge, against orders, and the bold Mississipi general (name escapes me) moved to capitalize on the mistake, if not for Wisconsin’s LTC Dawes filling the breech, the Union’s supply line (and escape route, Baltimore Pike?) would have been cut.

“Pickett’s charge” is where US artillery earned the title `King of Battle.’

But for that there would have been nothing standing between Lee’s army—Lee admittedly bled but never timid like a string of dismissed federal brass hats—nothing between him and Washington DC but routed Yankee troops.

I can see the Union having to sue for peace if Lincoln were then captured. Check mate, CSA.


80 posted on 03/17/2015 9:11:23 AM PDT by tumblindice (America's founding fathers: all armed conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 301-314 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson