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

I’d like to think yes. If the Confederate government could’ve gotten British or French naval superiority to reopen trade routes and bargained with Mexico over repatriation of western land to the Mexican government for troops in the western theater. Simply remaining a defensive army wasn’t an option without opening shipping routes.

The South could have won a political victory if the North had decided keeping the Union together wasn't worth the cost. As long as the Union kept its resolve, the outcome was a foregone conclusion. It was an agrarian society fighting a modern (for the time) industrial power. The South couldn't even manufacture its own weapons in any meaningful quantity. The North was no more than 25% mobilized at any point in the war, meanwhile the South had to be on a total war footing just to hang on. Lee could have annihilated Meade at Gettysburg and the Union could have reconstituted another army in short order. They could even have halted offensive campaigning and let the blockade do its work, which would have led to widespread suffering and starvation in the South, with many, many civilian deaths.

I say this as someone with Confederate ancestors. They were brave, but they never had a chance, and the ones who weren't blinded by their own misconceptions knew it.

quote:

---

The south was hoping for aid from other countries but it was still doomed since all manufacturing took place in the north.

---

One of the most noted historians of the Civil War, Shelby Foote, said in the Ken Burns documentary covering that war that the north could not have lost that war simply due to their ability to outproduce the south in things it takes to wage war. And he was very emphatic about making that point.

quote:

---

In truth the South had no real chance to win the war without massive economic and military (including troops) aid from abroad.

---

Once Great Britain figured out how to grow cotton in Egypt and India that chance went out the window.

Rhett Butler spelled it out.

Alexander I did just fine letting enemy have Moscow

If the war lasted a couple more years, repeating rifles enter the scene. Or needle guns. Ask A-H how that worked out.

They had somewhat of a chance if they had taken DC at the Battle of Bull Run/Manassas.

They could have prolonged war with a different strategy at Gettysburg. Probably should have marched toward DC and chosen the ground for the battle instead of attacking a Union fortified position on the 2nd day.

Yes, had they been able to take Washington DC before the end of 1861. After that, logistics, manpower, and industrial capacity pretty much determined the outcome given the effective blockade of all southern ports. Additionally, the Army of the Republic wound up with some really good generals in charge in late 1863 and all of 1864.

quote:

---

The South should have gone on the offensive early with guerilla warfare tactics and broken the North’s spirit. The North’s commitment to preserving the union wouldn’t have been as strong if citizens of Philadelphia, D.C., etc had felt threatened by arson, getting shot, etc.

---

You can't conduct a successful guerilla campaign on hostile territory. You need support from local civilians. Supplies, hiding places, intel, etc.

This is a great thread btw