“The War of Northern Aggression” as my grandpa used to say..
Some Civil War historian claimed the Union was fighting with one hand behind its back. The South was at maximum effort while the North had plenty of capacity, men and material it could use if needed.
Since most of the fighting happened in the South, the North’s war machine was never imperiled.
I wonder if the South had won at Gettysburg, and had continued success on Northern soil, would the Union lost its will to fight.
No. The North was vastly more populous,industrial, and wealthy. It was an uneven match. The South had better generals though. In WWII the Germans also had better generals. But fortunately for the Allies, Hitler often ignored them. The Germans, like the South in the War Between the States, could never hope to keep up with Allied industrial production.
A key point many may overlook is that the South could not have achieved their goals with a “two-state” solution: the confederacy would have been a failed state. Keep in mind, that the war was not triggered by an attempt to ban slavery in the deep south, but to limit its growth to the West. Mere secession would have left the South not only with a large, enslaved population inclined to insurrection, but also with a white population that was largely doomed to mere agriculture, and yet could not compete with slave plantations. “Victory” without conquest of the North would thus result in a tiny, super-rich elite governing over a nation plagued by grinding poverty and unrest.
So the question is not could the South have repelled the North, but could they have conquered it; could they have won without home-team advantage? Could they have invaded cities like Boston and New York?
IMO Maj. Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman would have had to have been assassinated in December of 1863 or January 1864...Then the south would have had a shot.
The South was not fighting a war of conquest while the North was. The Republican government of the North would have continued but in smaller form without the South. It would have also continued in the South.
For the north it was very much like another war in the 1960’s. And people were getting VERY tired of the cost.
If not for Gettysburg, it is quite possible the South would have won. As much as I support their states rights stance, this would not have been a good thing.
Another component was the North’s unlimited supply of free (non slave) military-age manpower : Ireland and Germany
Like with most major wars the losing side usually has an opportunity to outright win a war or at least set up the conditions for a favorable peace. In the case of the Civil War, if Lee had made just a couple different decisions at Gettysburg, the South would have won her independence. At least for awhile.
Even if the 1860’s Civil War had been won by the South, it would have only been one battle in a longer war. The slavery issue would have still existed in the South, with the North likely actively encouraging slaves to flee north. Between the runaway slave issue and claims to western territory, it’s likely there would have been a second war. Of course there’s no telling which side would have won.
“By March 1865, it was obvious to all but the most die-hard Confederates that the South was going to lose the war.”
From what I can tell, that date should be March 2015.
Lee knew that the South couldn’t win straight up with the North from the very beginning. It was out manned and outgunned. He saw that the only way to possible to win was to prolonged the war and make it into a war of attrition, whereas the politicians fearing the death toll was too much would get involved and end it with a truce or settlement
Before the civil war: the United States “are”.
After the civil war: the United States “is”.
The original US Constitutional republic died the day the civil war ended, and a bureaucratic federal oligarchy took its place.
Harry Turtledove says yes.
No. The South lacked the resoruces, the international support, the economic wherewithal, and most of all the leadership to win.
Who said,”We lost?”