"How the South Could Have Won the Civil War" Topic

FOr a review of Bevin Alexander's latest work, please see link

Lee lost the war; Jackson might have won it. Controversial, altough this argument has been made before by other authors. Alexander, a well respected and prolific author and a Virginian, argues rather convincingly that it was human failure that doomed the Confederacy, not Northern military, industrial, or political might, or the overwhelming advantage in manpower and resources.

Controversial book, but it makes you think…

I've read some of Alexander's other works, like How Wars Are Won, and it was a big "DUUUUHHHHH."

If that book was anything to go by I wouldn't bother reading this one. Plus if he focuses on on anything the south could have done militarily he probably has missed the point.

Lee, in one of his rare comments about the war, said that if he had Jackson at Gettysburg he likely would have won the first day. Would that have been enough?

Despite Grant's stunning triumph at Vicksburg, more AOP losses might have led to a Northern peace candidate in 1864. This would have been precipitated by a collapse of popular will.

If one looks at it through the Clausewitzian trinitarian analysis of passion (the people), chance (the army), and reason (the government), it would have been difficult for the United States to win if the people, having lost faith in the army, changed the course of government.

The rebels could never have occupied the United States, their only chance was to wear down US will to fight. That might have happened absent Gettysburg, Vicksburg and Atlanta.

We on TMP and even more learned historians have discussed this to death. There are dozens of books like this. I haven't read this book but… why bother?! Another 'What if…' book about a topic beaten to death?! *Yawn* You spend your money and takes yer chances.

Unless some author can come up with Official reports that proves that Jackson _WASN'T_ killed in 1863 at Chancellorsville or some such silliness it's all spectulation and someone's opinion. *yawn*

Pickett's charge as "the high tide" point of the war, is a popularly accepted fact. I don't see how Jackson's presence could have or would have averted that disasterous mistake. But if it somehow had, and the North had lost Gettysburg, I do believe that the POSSIBLE reaction to that and the consequent course, would have given the South its standoff (winning) position. Would the North have resumed the war? I doubt it. Today we would have two very closely allied "nations". Would slavery still exist? I doubt it: in Europe alone it was completely dead and proscribed. The South would have existed virtually alone in the modern world if it had continued slavery (which it was already taking tentative steps toward abolishing slowly before the war). Would the rift between South and North, over a failure of the North to "win", be greater today than the rift caused by the exploitation (carpetbaggers) and demeaning of the South that we remember still? I have heard Southerners only half-jokingly warn that "the cause" is not forgotten in the South. I believe the war scars and "the cause" are not fully healed even now. We are not a nation divided, but we are a nation agitated by our earlier failure to understand, appease, and thus fail to avoid the worst calamity in our shared history. That failure worries/frightens us still, because when feelings run high it could happen again….

Mr. Mingus,

We have a wide difference of opinion. After reading his seriously-factually-challenged book about Lee and his cult-worship about Jackson, I have an opinion about Mr Alexander that is anything but, as you put it, "well respected."

So I am not going to mindlessly lay out my $$ for this guy again unless he shows better standards.

I was in Borders the other night and took my time in reading through extensive sections of his new title. Poorly researched and even worse analysis are the words that readily come to my mind in describing this "piece of work."

Mr. Mingus, I am not being patronizing, but your article on Stuart's ride in the latest issue of G-burg magazine has more research and thought put into it than Alexander's book. I am therefore surprised at your review, but that is the beauty of America.

Me ke aloha,

MJ

If my memory serves me well… many years ago Saturday Night Live did a funny bit with historians discussing, "What if Napoleon had a B-17 at Waterloo?". Or was that Monty Python? These kinda books remind me of that comic bit.

The only way the south could have "won" the civil war:

1- never started a shooting war.
2- politically worked to get the Federal government to pay for the slaves to be freed and agreed to a schedule to do so.
3- provided for the freed slaves with land and a mule so they could be independant.
4- joined the rest of the civilized world in agreeing that slavery was wrong.

Getting to heaven is easy too I hear (smile).

Dan

Another thought:

Anyone ever notice that no one ever writes a book, or article on how the Union could have won the war in 1862 and wrap up the rebellion with a victory at 1st Bull Run?

It appears to be the very nature of a losing side to spend the rest of eternity trying to figure out what they did wrong and how they could have avoided their actual fate, rather than spend time considering what they might have done in the first place to have not put their foot in the bear trap.

All goes to prove that most wars are the results of faulty reasoning, stupid mistakes and inability to face reality.

Dan

avidgamer,

It was Saturday Night Live. My favorite one was: "What If Spartacus Had a Cessna?".

"What If Spartacus Had a Cessna?".

Hmmmm… I never saw that one. Damn! :)

Dan,

Here's a GREAT 'what if?' What would have happened if Chief of US Ordinance Gen. Ripley had accepted and started massive production of the Spencer rifle? If issued to all Union infantry the war would have been over by mid-64. Add the Gatling gun as standard to infantry brigade's inventory and the end result could have been swifter. Twenty Stonewall Jacksons would not have made any difference.

Dan Cyr,

You hit the nail on the head with the "loser re-fighting the war over and over" concept.

I am a non-football fan who lives in a town obsessed with football and I always say I'd prefer to have our team win the Superbowl because people only talk about it for a week. If they lose the Superbowl, they talk about it for a month!

The south could have won by several different methods
Free the slaves and recruit them into the army.
Promise them land out west for service

Stop the flow of immigrants to the Union.
Pamphlet the ports in Europe, show the forced conscription and the Union army shooting those who didn't want to be a conscript. Remind them they were fleeing from European tyrants to become the cannon fodder of the war profiteers

The classic SNL routine was "What if Eleanor Roosevelt Could Fly?". If she could, she would have led a bomber wing (B-17s) on devastating missions over Germany.

avidgamer,

Sorry, it was a Piper Cub. From SNL 2/23/1980 with Kirk Douglas as the host.

The problem with counterfactual history is that it is COUNTER FACTUAL -- speculation at best with no way to test or prove. And, in the case of the cited work, it relies on a single variable when, in reality, the outcome of any battle, much less a wary, is reliant on so many interactive variable that it is ludicrous to claim a single action, man, battle, whatever would have made the difference. Fiction at best, speculation at worse.

If they'd freed the slaves, Old Fox, there'd been nothing to fight about (smile) from the southern point of view.

Promising freed slaves, or anyone who'd move out west, free (basically) land out west was already part of the Homestead Act by the Federal government in that period.

Dan

Only two ways they could have won, really.

If they'd driven on Washington right after Bull Run / Manassas, they might have gotten the Union to chicken out.

The other way was to get European recognition and support.
-Kle.

"Sorry, it was a Piper Cub."

Cyrus,

Oh well… I never saw that one either. ;)

Dan, that is only true if the only reason for the war was slavery, but the growing imbalance of power between the industrial north and the southen states was part of the conflict.
The constitution, and the right of states to leave the union were also at stake.

Slavery only gave the North the moral high ground

The trouble is, what would Lee have done had he won at Gettysburg. It wasn't an invasion to take and hold Northern Terratory, more an attempt tp plunder there supplies and fight the war on there soil for once.

Gettysburg would not, in my opinion have opened the doors to Washington.

The Homestead Act wasn't passed until 1863, and it is doubtful that it would have passed had southern Democrats remained in Congress. Giving the land away, especially to immigrants, was considered a radical position before the war.

Whoops. The Homestead Act was passed in 1862, not 1863; the main point remains.

The only way the South could have won was by building a time machine and sending a cyborg back in time to kill John Winthrop and Miles Standish.

The South's one and only real opportunity to win the war was following up on their victory at the first Manassass by marching straight to Washington DC.

The shock of the capital being taken would possibly have destroyed the Northern states' will to fight, not to mention their center of command and communication. This might have induced the North to allow the South to split from the Union.

The South never came close after that.

As every PC person knows, the ACW was just about freeing the slaves. So all the South had to do was free the slaves, and the North would have happily let them have their independence!

Quote: "Mr. Mingus, I am not being patronizing, but your article on Stuart's ride in the latest issue of G-burg magazine has more research and thought put into it than Alexander's book. I am therefore surprised at your review, but that is the beauty of America.

Me ke aloha,

MJ"

Jim,

Thanks for the compliment!!!! I really appreciate it. If you liked the Stuart article, you should enjoy my new book on John Gordon's brigade in the Gettysburg Campaign. It should be out later this year. It will be followed by a book I just finished on the Louisiana Tigers.

Since the only thing that the south gave up was slavery to end the war, what exactly did the south fight for other than slavery?

Slavery was the core, center and basic reason the south rebelled as it felt increasingly threatened by non-slave states and the growing inability of the south to project slavery. Fewer slave states, less political power.

Basically the south stayed in the Union as long as it could control the political agenda, or threaten to hold it's breath and turn blue unless non-slave states gave into their demands. Once the south lost political control of Congress and the Presidency, it rebelled.

No slaves, no rebellion. It gets boring debating such arguments with people who don't want to accept what the south fought for, so I'll resist directing you to the thousands of 1st person documents, newspapers, booklets, and speeches by southerns proclaiming why they intended to and had rebelled both prior to and during the war.

Dan

Not so. There were many other issues. Taxation on Southern goods to protect Northern industry, States Rights (very big back then), Northern political domination, etc. "It gets boring debating such arguments with people who don't want to accept.." so I'll refer you to any good encyclopedia. Slavery was an issue, but hardly the only one. Even without slavery, the South had more than enough reason to want to leave the union. "Restore the Union" was the cry from the North, not "Free the slaves".
So you really believe that if the South had freed its slaves the North would have given it it's freedom?

So do we want to start a separate thread rather than hijack Scott Mingus' review thread?

Dan, you are ignoring a lot of evidence to the contrary.

Interesting how this discussion has digressed into one with a racist undertone to it.

Racist undertone? Care to be specific?

A few thoughts, FWIW :

By not attacking Ft.Sumpter or any Federal
property within its territory ?
By adopting a full guerilla defensive warfare,
largely based on autonomous, state supported,
cavalry forces ?
By not stopping cotton exportations and invest
more in blockade running naval forces ?

>So you really believe that if the South had
>freed its slaves the North would have given
>it it's freedom?

No, but European powers would have immediately
supported it, on purely economical grounds, if
not for anything else.

>Basically the south stayed in the Union as long
>as it could control the political agenda, or
>threaten to hold it's breath and turn blue
>unless non-slave states gave into their demands.
>Once the south lost political control of Congress
>and the Presidency, it rebelled.

Mostly agree, unless political control of Congress
would have no influence on tariffs anylonger.
IMHO, beside significant 'morale' issues on
abolitionism and states vs. federal rights
(Scott case), the matter was mainly a political
competition between a 'globalized' South and a 'protectionist' North.

Quote:

The South's one and only real opportunity to win the war was following up on their victory at the first Manassass by marching straight to Washington DC.

The shock of the capital being taken would possibly have destroyed the Northern states' will to fight, not to mention their center of command and communication. This might have induced the North to allow the South to split from the Union.

The South never came close after that.

Jhonston and Beauregard commands weren't in the shape for a pursuit. The union raw volunteer army collapsed buty the confederate equally raw volunteer army did the same, only a bit less. Often we wargamers forgot that after a victory the winners are the not fresh and fully operational. 1st BR was a really close run thing.

"The shock of the capital being taken would possibly have destroyed the Northern states' will to fight, "

It didn't work for the British in 1812!

The Old Fox is correct, the while the loss of the Washington would be a short term loss for the North, the positive side for the North is that it would united northern opinion support for the war. People tend to forget that northern support for the war was "soft" during the early stages of the war and the loss of Washington in my option would have united the population support for the war.

Yada-yada-yada.

Look, (says the "Bear Flag" Californian…grin) The South lost.

Changing history is fun to a point but it can't be done anymore then treaty violations with the First Americans (aka as 'Indians' to my Cherokee and white father) can be undone. Acknowledge and move on (with a trust but verify attitude) seems a better use of the time/oxygen.

Gracias,

Glenn

They lost, that's it. I agree with warbeads