- 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 7:50 am to TheTideMustRoll
Posted on 1/13/17 at 7:50 am to TheTideMustRoll
Yes, but couldn't capitalize in 62-63 due to a number of obstacles listed above.
Picture it like a football game. It was a good game, the South got a lead and the North turned the ball over at mid field. The South should have gone for the jugular, but didn't have the weaponry or manpower to go deep, so they had to sustain a drive, and couldn't. It was over after the North got the ball back and ran it down the South's throat and got two huge touchdowns at Gettysburg and Vicksburg.
Picture it like a football game. It was a good game, the South got a lead and the North turned the ball over at mid field. The South should have gone for the jugular, but didn't have the weaponry or manpower to go deep, so they had to sustain a drive, and couldn't. It was over after the North got the ball back and ran it down the South's throat and got two huge touchdowns at Gettysburg and Vicksburg.
2
Posted on 1/13/17 at 7:51 am to GetCocky11
Had the South fought a guerrilla campaign with pitched battles, the war wouldn't have been at its ending in 1864. The problem was that the South's military leaders were West Point men who were schooled in gentleman's warfare. The South was far outnumbered and needed its men more than the Union. And the South didn't have to win anything, it just had to keep fighting until the Northern population grew tired of sending its boys to die to keep people in a union who didn't want to be.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 7:52 am to GetCocky11
Would have required a foreign power getting involved. Mexico or Brazil (which still permitted slavery).
Posted on 1/13/17 at 7:52 am to SouthernHog
quote:
According to Granny from the Beverly Hillbillies, we're just at halftime. Had the South taken DC after bull run then yes.
She's not entirely wrong. After that encounter they fortified DC to the hilt after realizing how vulnerable it was. I don't believe taking the capitol would have destroyed the North's war effort but it works have shaken public opinion.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 7:55 am to 4WHLN
quote:
I would like a second try at it.
Let's fricking do it
The north and the south are so far apart in ideology, it only makes sense..
Posted on 1/13/17 at 7:58 am to prostyleoffensetime
quote:
Picture it like a football game. It was a good game, the South got a lead and the North turned the ball over at mid field. The South should have gone for the jugular, but didn't have the weaponry or manpower to go deep, so they had to sustain a drive, and couldn't. It was over after the North got the ball back and ran it down the South's throat and got two huge touchdowns at Gettysburg and Vicksburg.
that's a pretty good way to look at it.Posted on 1/13/17 at 7:59 am to TheTideMustRoll
Yes, it was possible. If the south resorted to guerrilla warfare then the war would have dragged on easily for another 10 years. The south would have won. But Robert Lee disismissed this plan and opted to just surrender.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 8:00 am to SCLibertarian
quote:
Such Troops as These: The Genius and Leadership of Confederate General Stonewall Jackson
By
quote:
Bevin Alexander
Has an interesting argument the they could have
quote:
Jackson believed invading the eastern states from Baltimore to Maine could divide and cripple the Union, forcing surrender, but failed to convince Confederate president Jefferson Davis or General Robert E. Lee.
I wasn't interested in the Civil War when I was young. This was the first book recommended to me. I'm looking for more if y'all have any recommendations.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 8:02 am to prostyleoffensetime
The War in the East almost literally could not have gone better for the South. Lincoln kept sending incompetents to face probably the greatest military commander in this nation's history, with predictable results. Just a quick glance at the relative strengths of each army prior to Chancellorsville will make you realize that by rights the ANV should have been crushed, and yet not only did they win, they almost completely destroyed the AoP. The aftermath of that battle tells you everything you need to know about the war. The South would have been doomed by a loss like that. The North, meanwhile, just drafted another army and got ready to do it again.
Grant vs. Lee in 1864/65 is often portrayed as two similarly great commanders facing off, but in reality it was a master against a pragmatist. The master could, and did, defeat the pragmatist tactically at almost every turn. The pragmatist knew that he would win in the end simply by continuing to fight.
Grant vs. Lee in 1864/65 is often portrayed as two similarly great commanders facing off, but in reality it was a master against a pragmatist. The master could, and did, defeat the pragmatist tactically at almost every turn. The pragmatist knew that he would win in the end simply by continuing to fight.
This post was edited on 1/13/17 at 8:03 am
Posted on 1/13/17 at 8:05 am to bountyhunter
quote:
The North was losing their taste for the war due to decisive wins by the South.
I tell my Yankee friends when the civil war subject comes up..."you know at the beginning of the war we were kicking ya'lls butts"..."we thought ya'll were after our women, when we realized you wanted the black folks, we stopped fighting"
Posted on 1/13/17 at 8:06 am to TheTideMustRoll
No. The only reason it went as
long as it did was Lee's military genius.
long as it did was Lee's military genius.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 8:08 am to bountyhunter
Had Lee taken command of northern forces the war would have been over in a yest.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 8:09 am to TheTideMustRoll
It was possible, but only if they had AK-47's
Posted on 1/13/17 at 8:09 am to TGFN57
quote:
Had Lee taken command of northern forces the war would have been over in a yest.
Considering how the war ended up going and how Reconstruction went down, it would have been better if Lee did take the northern command and ended the war in a year.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 8:10 am to dnm3305
Ha ha, a fellow Harry Turtledove fan, eh? 
Posted on 1/13/17 at 8:19 am to TheTideMustRoll
quote:
Ha ha, a fellow Harry Turtledove fan, eh?
Posted on 1/13/17 at 8:22 am to TheTideMustRoll
quote:
Was it possible for the South to win the Civil War?
No.
Lincoln didn't give a shite what it took to win the war even if it meant half a million americans dying a bloody death. He was in it to win it and played like it and its for that reason why he was a tyrannical thug piece of shite as he fired and imprisoned anyone in the North that disobeyed him or even questioned him.
When you have a President in the enemy that don't care how many people die and did whatever it took to win, your chances of winning are pretty low.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 8:26 am to TheTideMustRoll
Early on yes but it would have required using tactics that Lee and Jefferson were not comfortable with. Had Jackson been in charge instead of Lee there is a good chance the war would have ended much more quickly and with a southern win.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 8:28 am to TheTideMustRoll
If Stonewall jackson wasnt accidentally killed by his own men, then Pickett never charges the hill at Gettysburg. Confederates win Gettysburg and march on DC, forcing a truce. Thats how close it came.
South wasnt fighting to conquer the north, just had to put up enough fight that the North would lose interest in fighting and leave the confederates alone. It came very close to that.
South wasnt fighting to conquer the north, just had to put up enough fight that the North would lose interest in fighting and leave the confederates alone. It came very close to that.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 8:31 am to Mr. Hangover
quote:
Let's fricking do it
The north and the south are so far apart in ideology, it only makes sense
it is more rural vs city
Page 2 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News