- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Was it possible for the South to win the Civil War?
Posted on 1/13/17 at 9:41 am to dallastiger55
Posted on 1/13/17 at 9:41 am to dallastiger55
They were winning in the East. At no point in the war could the South ever have been said to be winning in the West. It was only varying degrees of losing for them there.
The South gave as good as they got in a hundred-mile strip of land between D.C. and Richmond. Everywhere else, the Civil War was more or less a disaster for them.
The South gave as good as they got in a hundred-mile strip of land between D.C. and Richmond. Everywhere else, the Civil War was more or less a disaster for them.
0
Posted on 1/13/17 at 9:44 am to dallastiger55
quote:
They were winning until Gettysburg
In the East, but elsewhere things weren't so good.
For obvious reasons people focus on the East and in particular RE Lee, but losing the Mississippi River, Tenn and having large Union armies and their gunboats poised to invade the South's heartland wasn't a good position to be in.
Like someone said earlier, Shiloh doesn't get its due. A Rebel win there and things are very different. Grant is humbled and the North would still have been on the outside looking in. By winning Shiloh the North was able to eventually seize Vicksburg, all of Tenn and launch operations into Ga.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 9:46 am to EvrybodysAllAmerican
quote:
Obviously we'll never know, but everything was going well for the South up to Gettysburg and then it went all downhill after that.
Only in that theater of the war was it going well. It was going horribly for the South everywhere else.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 9:47 am to TheTideMustRoll
Yes. Had the Union lost at Gettysburg things may have ended differently. Pickett's Charge doomed the Confederate cause.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 9:49 am to TheTideMustRoll
Well considering it damn near happened - yes.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 9:49 am to Tchefuncte Tiger
quote:
Pickett's Charge doomed the Confederate cause.
Gettysburg was lost before Pickett's Charge. Lee should have retreated after his army failed to secure the high ground in the early moments of the battle.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 9:51 am to TheTideMustRoll
Yes, but not alone. They had to have European assistance (preferably British) for material support and naval assistance to break the blockade.
Problem the South had was that the British people would not support the support of a slave nation (after having abolished in 30 years before) and because Egypt was a nice new source of cotton so that the South was not as necessary.
If the South had vowed (and actually passed legislation) to abolish slavery within 10 years, they would have received European assistance and won the war.
Problem the South had was that the British people would not support the support of a slave nation (after having abolished in 30 years before) and because Egypt was a nice new source of cotton so that the South was not as necessary.
If the South had vowed (and actually passed legislation) to abolish slavery within 10 years, they would have received European assistance and won the war.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 9:52 am to Tchefuncte Tiger
Pickett's Charge was not going to reclaim Tennessee and Kentucky, reopen communications across the Mississippi, and lift a crippling naval blockade, no matter how successful it was.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 9:56 am to TheTideMustRoll
quote:
Pickett's Charge was not going to reclaim Tennessee and Kentucky, reopen communications across the Mississippi, and lift a crippling naval blockade, no matter how successful it was.
Not to mention the Southern government was pretty tyrannical during the war, and Jefferson Davis was a mediocre president.
This post was edited on 1/13/17 at 9:57 am
Posted on 1/13/17 at 9:57 am to TheTideMustRoll
Not a chance
quote:
You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it... Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth—right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 9:58 am to GetCocky11
Had Nathan Bedford Forrest's talents been recognized and utilized the south would have easily pulled it out.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 9:58 am to TheTideMustRoll
I think Shelby Foote put it best - the North essentially fought the war with one hand tied behind its back. The North wasn't nearly as committed to the war in terms of percentage of total manpower / resources as the South was. For the Confederacy, it truly was 100% all in. Had the South had a lot more successes than they actually did, then Lincoln would have had to "pull out the other hand".
This post was edited on 1/13/17 at 9:59 am
Posted on 1/13/17 at 10:10 am to KSCC
I really enjoy playing military strategy games. Any time I've played a strategic-level simulation of the Civil War as the South, my first act is always to look at the West and think, "How the hell am I supposed to defend all of that with this handful of men?" 
Posted on 1/13/17 at 10:15 am to HooDooWitch
quote:
I'm looking for more if y'all have any recommendations
Same here. I was thinking of picking up Gods and Generals and The Killer Angels. Any other suggestions?
Posted on 1/13/17 at 10:31 am to boxcarbarney
I'm in the middle of Foote's 3 volume narrative ( Amazon).
It's an ambitious project even to read at 3000 pages. However the level of detail is stunning. Not only what happened, but what officers were thinking was about to happen, only to be incorrect on several occasions.
It's an ambitious project even to read at 3000 pages. However the level of detail is stunning. Not only what happened, but what officers were thinking was about to happen, only to be incorrect on several occasions.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 10:33 am to TheTideMustRoll
Quite possible. Even probable by many indicators.
So fricking glad the South's bid failed. Great development for the USA in the long run
So fricking glad the South's bid failed. Great development for the USA in the long run
Posted on 1/13/17 at 10:35 am to TheTideMustRoll
It's not over. It's just on standby.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 10:46 am to TheTideMustRoll
quote:
ickett's Charge was not going to reclaim Tennessee and Kentucky, reopen communications across the Mississippi, and lift a crippling naval blockade, no matter how successful it was.
This is valid, but success at Gettysburg would/should have led to marching on to DC. Taking or even threatening DC may have forced a truce/diplomatic ending to the war regardless of what was going on in the west.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 10:51 am to Quidam65
quote:
The South was very close to taking DC after Manassas Junction/Bull Run. Had they went ahead and done so, they probably win.
But the longer they stretched it out, the North's superior advantage in industrial capacity took over.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 10:55 am to TheTideMustRoll
Yes, with a quick victory. Anytime an opponent has advantages in manpower and industrial capacity, you need a lightening war to win. The longer the conflict drags out, the more likely the side with more resources will win.
The Germans illustrated this nicely in WW2.
The Germans illustrated this nicely in WW2.
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News