Could the South Have Won?

NY Books ^ | June 2002 ed. | James M. McPherson

[stainlessbanner]

Some new books for your libraries.

[stainlessbanner]

Can you guys repost? I had to start a new thread...thanks!

[stainlessbanner]

New thread, new books!

[Tauzero]

Thanks for the ping!

[varina davis]

As one Virginian expressed it: They never whipped us, Sir, unless they were four to one. If we had had anything like a fair chance, or less disparity of numbers, we should have won our cause and established our independence.

Succinct.

[Mr. Bird]

But upon reflection, a good many historians have questioned their explicit assertions that overwhelming numbers and resources made Northern victory inevitable. If that is true, the Confederate leaders who took their people to war in 1861 were guilty of criminal folly or colossal arrogance

I'm no Civil War scholar, but I believe they led their people to secede from the Union, not to take up arms against it. It was the North that determined this a causus belli.

[Mr. Bird]

sorry, causus belli= casus belli

[Azrael]

If you ever get the chance to see William C. Davis speak, take it. His lectures are as crisp and insightful as his books. He is the head of the Virginia Center for Civil War Studies, they have several functions every year that are of interest.

[Billthedrill]

Succinct yes, accurate no. But it hardly matters, and if it serves to stoke Southern pride let it be.

The consensus among the scholars I've read is that the South may well have won - even a sustained stalemate would have constituted a victory - had it managed to break the blockade and establish commercial relationships with the European industrial powers of the time, specifically Britain. Cotton was still, in the 60s, sufficiently in demand to provide the cash necessary to offset much of the North's advantage in material; all that was lacking was the logistical chain necessary to provide it to the front.

Politically Europe was in an interim period at the time between the revolutions of 1848 and the Bismark/Napoleon III period. Whether a sustained European military intervention would have been possible is less certain, probably not on land where it was less necessary, probably so at sea courtesy of the Royal Navy, where it might have made a real difference. It was that last piece that constituted a real Northern diplomatic victory and probably shortened the war considerably. All IMHO and subject to (intense) debate, of course...

[billbears]

Appreciate the bump but I'm a bit confused. Books on the Southern point of view reviewed by McPherson? Isn't that a bit like asking the devil what he thinks of the Bible?

[varina davis]

Lol. Bump!

[stainlessbanner]

Thanks, I hope Davis makes the rounds near my state - I will go see him. Mr. Clark (a fellow FReeper) said his new book, "Look Away" is a great read. I just got my copy, and I plan to dive into it.

[stand watie]

intresting, that PRO-DIXIE threads seem to JUST DISAPPEAR???

for dixie,sw

[stainlessbanner]

Perhaps some do, but this one was my mistake. The first post had some pricing information (ie. advertisments) that should not have been included in the original post. I just fixed it and reposted.

[Charlotte Corday]

Had the South Carolina fire-eaters permitted the US Navy to relieve Fort Sumter, it's very likely that some of the "Northern South" (Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina) would not have seceded and served as a buffer zone, ensuring the survival of a smaller, but secure Confederacy.

So you have to point to the gunfire on Sumter, 12 April 61, as the precipitate "casus belli"

[stand watie]

OK, BUT i do NOT trust the damnyankees who seem to censor PRO-dixie freedom threads!

for freedom for DIXIE, sw

[billbears]

Had the South Carolina fire-eaters permitted the US Navy to relieve Fort Sumter

Considering the tyrant's first address to the nation, it was quite clear the US Navy would not be relieving Fort Sumter as much as resupplying Fort Sumter. abe wanted his tariff money

[Poohbah]

Fine. The Navy shows up, resupplies Fort Sumter, and Fort Sumter does...what, exactly? Short answer: not much.

Jeff Davis wanted a war. He got a war. What's HIS beef?

[Colt .45]

"OK, BUT i do NOT trust the damnyankees who seem to censor PRO-dixie freedom threads!"

Amen brother!

[r9etb]

The consensus among the scholars I've read is that the South may well have won - even a sustained stalemate would have constituted a victory - had it managed to break the blockade and establish commercial relationships with the European industrial powers of the time, specifically Britain.

Simlar to how French aid helped us in the revolution.

In reality, I think the South could never have won a clear victory. The Civil War was the first modern war, and it's clear that the South did not have the wherewithal -- people, resources, and industry -- to properly fight it, whereas the Union did.

Let's be quite clear: the North flat out won the war, and the South flat out lost it.

The only "victory" the South could have won is an armistice born of war-weariness on the part of the North. I think however, that the war would eventually have started again, for the same reasons, though probably more in the west. And the South would have been defeated by the North, for the same reasons.