Started By
Message

Did the South ever really have a chance (Civil War)?

Posted on 7/17/22 at 3:24 pm
Posted by SaintlyTiger88
Louisiana
Member since Apr 2013
1943 posts
Posted on 7/17/22 at 3:24 pm
Question for those of you who know the history and facts of the Civil War. Do you believe the Confederate States ever really had a shot to win the war, or was it a doomed cause from the start? Were the Union’s resources what made the gap between armies so big?

I love history, and have actually visited Gettysburg, but still don’t know as much about the Civil War as I would like at this point, hoping to learn a lot more.
Posted by PiscesTiger
Concrete, WA
Member since Feb 2004
53696 posts
Posted on 7/17/22 at 3:26 pm to
Had Great Britain agreed to sign on, who knows? And France. They loved their cotton from lower south.

Railroads
Banks
Man power
Ammunition galore

Vs

Agrarian and spirited
This post was edited on 7/17/22 at 3:27 pm
Posted by tigerbutt
Deep South
Member since Jun 2006
24537 posts
Posted on 7/17/22 at 3:26 pm to
South had a chance until the supplies were cut off.
Posted by SuperSaint
Sorting Out OT BS Since '2007'
Member since Sep 2007
140462 posts
Posted on 7/17/22 at 3:26 pm to
Not sure but it’ll rise again
Posted by udtiger
Over your left shoulder
Member since Nov 2006
98282 posts
Posted on 7/17/22 at 3:26 pm to
Yes.

If they could have regrouped after First Bull Run, they could have taken DC and likely made USA sue for peace.

Similarly, had they not failed at Gettysburg and could actually take the fight into the North, and had Vicksburg not fallen, it's likely France and Britain may have supported the Confederacy in 63.
This post was edited on 7/17/22 at 3:27 pm
Posted by BuckyCheese
Member since Jan 2015
48599 posts
Posted on 7/17/22 at 3:26 pm to
Rhett was right.
Posted by bad93ex
Member since Sep 2018
26877 posts
Posted on 7/17/22 at 3:27 pm to
The south was hoping for aid from other countries but it was still doomed since all manufacturing took place in the north.
Posted by TigerstuckinMS
Member since Nov 2005
33687 posts
Posted on 7/17/22 at 3:27 pm to
The union didn't really have the resources. The south did. What the south lacked were manufacturing capabilities, so the effective naval blockade is really what I think doomed them. Without a way to trade their resources for war materiel from abroad, the south was effectively dead on arrival.
This post was edited on 7/17/22 at 3:29 pm
Posted by Rockbrc
Attic
Member since Nov 2015
7895 posts
Posted on 7/17/22 at 3:28 pm to
Not much-the north fought most of the war with one hand tied behind it’s back
Posted by Kafka
I am the moral conscience of TD
Member since Jul 2007
141386 posts
Posted on 7/17/22 at 3:28 pm to
Posted by PiscesTiger
Concrete, WA
Member since Feb 2004
53696 posts
Posted on 7/17/22 at 3:28 pm to
The south has better generals, too.

But yeah once the Anaconda Plan was in tact and Gettysburg was lost, it was over.

It lasted a lot longer than it was predicted.
Posted by Auburn80
Backwater, TN
Member since Nov 2017
7457 posts
Posted on 7/17/22 at 3:28 pm to
No, but they didn’t think they had other options.
Posted by deeprig9
Unincorporated Ozora, Georgia
Member since Sep 2012
63768 posts
Posted on 7/17/22 at 3:29 pm to
The confederates hoped to break the will of the people of the north and thought the war would only last a few months before the north gave up.

I think if either side had known it would have gone on that long with that many casualties, neither side would have participated. The South wouldn't have succeeded and the North wouldn't have stopped them if they did.
Posted by fr33manator
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2010
123805 posts
Posted on 7/17/22 at 3:31 pm to
Had they pressed on after first bull run they might have been able to take the capital and forced an armistice
Posted by fr33manator
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2010
123805 posts
Posted on 7/17/22 at 3:33 pm to
quote:

The confederates hoped to break the will of the people of the north and thought the war would only last a few months before the north gave up.



Eerily similar to the schlieffen plan.

Could have resulted in a short war and less loss of life. The south would have given up their slaves when it no longer became economically feasible with industrialization. Probably by the 1890s
Posted by LSUfan4444
Member since Mar 2004
53718 posts
Posted on 7/17/22 at 3:34 pm to
Gold wins wars, not soldiers. - Petyr Baelish
Posted by keakar
Member since Jan 2017
29820 posts
Posted on 7/17/22 at 3:35 pm to
quote:

South had a chance until the supplies were cut off.



this ^^^^^^^

it had to be done in short order and done fast, with no fricking up or waiting around for someone to issue new orders to keep going

at gettysburg (i think it was gettysburg) they won large on the first day, the union retreated and was in shambles and they could have just walked into the capital unopposed, after that they could have arrested lincoln and congress and forced their surrender and the war would be won.

instead, they just fricked around and got drunk celebrating winning the battle rather then march unopposed right into washington and finish winning the war. all because they never expected to win so easily and they had no orders what to do after taking gettysburg

by the time they got their shite together, the north got rearmed and reinforced and turned the battle for the union.

that one battle (i think it was gettysburg) ended the confederacy because they didnt know what to do when they won so they just stayed put and did nothing while the union reorganized and counter attacked
This post was edited on 7/17/22 at 3:55 pm
Posted by PrimetimeDaBoss
Swag City, USA
Member since Oct 2008
7144 posts
Posted on 7/17/22 at 3:35 pm to
Nope
Posted by doubleb
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2006
35822 posts
Posted on 7/17/22 at 3:36 pm to
I think at Antietam, Lee blew his chance to win a military victory.
Not at the battle itself, but at that juncture.

The South had all the momentum, the North was poorly lead and a big victory at that time possibly could have pushed the Northern populace over the edge and weakened Lee’s position. Who knows? Lee might could have taken DC.

But everything went wrong. The North found Lee’s orders and were able to plan to confront Lee at a place if their choosing with Southern forces scattered.

This post was edited on 7/18/22 at 8:37 am
Posted by AUCE05
Member since Dec 2009
42548 posts
Posted on 7/17/22 at 3:39 pm to
Yes. Remember a win for the south meant withstanding the offensive push by the north. The North had to enter and take the south. There was a strong contingent with the southern leadership that wanted Lee to just play defense. Extend the war and the north would have given up. There was strong opposition in New England and most didn't care if the south broke off. Lee's dumbass went on offense.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 7Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram