Does anybody out there think that the South ever had a chance to win the Civil War?

Question

The North fought that war with one hand behind their back. If there had been more Confederate victories and successes, they would have simply brought that other hand out and smashed them flat. With only 3 million whites, they simply could not have supported a protracted war. It was a terrible thing that Lincolin was shot at the end. He wanted to accept them all back into "the fold". Johnson hated the South and made them pay for decades. Even today much of our poverty is in the South. They never stood a chance.

Answer 1

Logistics, logistics, logistics. Logistics win wars. The Union had it, the Confederacy didn't. The only hope the Confederacy had was for a quick victory. Once the war raged on and the Brits refused to enter on the side of the Confederates it was only a matter of time. I'm not sure what you mean about the Union fighting with one hand tied. I was raised in the South and the Union Army pretty much destroyed everything, including the civilain hospital, in the area where I grew up. That same statement could be made for much of the South. If you are meaning that the Union could have quickly applied more manpower, I would counter that they did not have the leaders to take on the extra Divisions. That is not a swipe at Union leadership but lends to the fact that most units prior to the war were small company sized elements and there just weren't enough officers that could effectively command large formations.

The Confederacy was just that. Jefferson Davis had limited power and could not dictate to the States the way that Lincoln could in the North. That lead to disjointed efforts between the Armies fighting in the east and the west. Also, Confederates had to expend troops trying to secure lines throughout the South, the North did not have that problem and could commit more troops to the offensive.

About troop losses. The American Civil War was one of the first wars to see the widespread use of the rifled musket. That weapon changed everything because it gave the rifleman the ability to accurately engage targets at long ranges. That weapon is cheifly responsible for forcing the trench warfare that we saw late in the war. It took time for both sides to learn how to adapt. That continued into WWI where the European armies still lost great numbers to improved weapons.

The lingering poverty in the South had as much to do with its agricultural nature as anything else. It wasn't until the early 60's that many areas began seriously moving from little more than subsistance farming to industrial work. My grandparents farmed as did many of their older kids. They were poor in money but rich in other ways. Now the South is thriving, especially with the growth of the automotive industry in the area. There are areas such as the Mississippi delta that remain abjectly poor but there are a lot of social and educational reasons for that...a whole other debate.

Answer 2

It's an interesting question, but quite honestly, I don't think so. the South did have better generals, But the North fared much better on food, weapons, equipment, uniforms, ammunition, and every resource except cotton was tilted drastically in favor of the north. Cotton was 50-50 union- confederates.

But the South had the home soil advantage. That's how Jackson faught, as well as Grant, who had won several victories early in the war before settling in for a long siege of Vicksburg, which eventually cleared the last obstacle for US control of the Mississippi. New Orleans was one of the fist places to go, and Vicksburg was the last hold.

However, Stonewall Jackson had a 7 ft map that had every small feature marked on it, and was very accurate. Union commanders were using often unreliable maps with very little detail. the Issue was that the South knew the area. the north didn't.

That's why the south did as well as they did. If it was waged on the Union's home ground, the union would have wiped them out within a few months.

And Johnson was a southerner. The only one who didn't leave congress. The Radical Republicans in the House and senate overwhelmed him, and when he didn't cooperate, impeached him, and with 2 more votes in the senate would have removed him from office.

Answer 3

Lee blew it when he invade the north twice. It wasn't in the game plan. If the south had massed troops and bulled their way to Washington early in the war, well then the south would have won. If they had sat back and defended, like they had planned to, it is possible that the war would have dragged on long enough for a political settlement. Actually played a civil war simulation and won the war for the south. Just different tactics is all. I mean, follow up after Fredricksburg and crush the union army. But no, the south wasn't aggressive enough, and the north's learning curve and superior numbers eventually won the day.

Answer 4

Yes, the south could have won. they nearly did on a few occasions. the north didn't not fight with "one hand behind their back", ridiculous.
The south had superior generals and just barely missed winning battles that would have seen the Confedarates take DC, which would probably have forced the US government to cease hostilities and cecede from the US without further conflict.

but the South could never win a protracted war, they didn't have the industry, population, or infrastructure

Answer 5

I certainly think that the South had a good chance of winning the Civil War because the Southerners made better soldiers than Northerners. Actually, the North had the industrial might that sort of had the upper-hand.

Answer 6

Sounds like you already have your mind made up, so what's the point? You haven't studied the war very thoroughly or you'd realize that only a few small things needed to change and the south would have won. If President Davis had decided on a war of aggression instead of defense...if Pickett's charge had buckled the union line, if Gen. Stonewall Jackson hadn't been killed...any one of these would have changed the outcome.

Answer 7

No we didn't because the Union army had the gatlin gun and other quicker loading weapons and better training. How ever the south had very old weapons and muzzle loaders that at the fastest took 15 seconds to load but thats ok THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN!!

Answer 8

No, The South never really had a chance against the North, they fought brave and true for thier cause, but were outnumbered, out industried, out monied and just plain out witted.

Answer 9

on the first battle the union army lost and retreated. the battle took place about 100 miles from the union capitol. if the south would of attacked we would live in the confederate states of america today

Answer 10

You're probably right. North had most of the industry and manpower - on the other hand, they did have riots I think in New York and Baltimore.

Anyway, save your Confederate dollars because......