Official "Did the Confederacy Have a Chance to Win the American Civil War?" Thread

[Municipal Engines]

What, exactly, do you think the rebellion was?

Pretty much, by definition, secession would destroy the United States...rather disunited, don't you think?

Best,

Except the idea and nation of the USA didn't (and arguably still doesn't) rely on the South for it to exist. The South can split off and there would indeed still be a United States of America; it's not a geographically-specific entity (okay, except for the 'America' part) it's the summation of cultures and ideas and a unique political system. States are still united, just some others have left; perpetual singular organic unity is not a prerequisite for the US nation-state.

 

[galveston bay]

Except the idea and nation of the USA didn't (and arguably still doesn't) rely on the South for it to exist. The South can split off and there would indeed still be a United States of America; it's not a geographically-specific entity (okay, except for the 'America' part) it's the summation of cultures and ideas and a unique political system.

the Constitution, Manifest Destiny, the Framers, the War of 1812 and the Mexican War, the Louisiana Purchase....all those things (or people) make it pretty clear that logic has nothing to do with this

I believe the term 'a continental empire of free men" goes back to the very foundation of America (I recall, but could be mistaken that Jefferson came up with that one).

Bottom line, the Union thought that there wasn't room on the continent for more than two nations (Canada being the other) and fought to make sure that they got the final say on that

 

[Municipal Engines]

the Constitution, Manifest Destiny, the Framers, the War of 1812 and the Mexican War, the Louisiana Purchase....all those things (or people) make it pretty clear that logic has nothing to do with this

I believe the term 'a continental empire of free men" goes back to the very foundation of America (I recall, but could be mistaken that Jefferson came up with that one).

Bottom line, the Union thought that there wasn't room on the continent for more than two nations (Canada being the other) and fought to make sure that they got the final say on that

Not arguing that the Union of the time thought, just the idea that the South seceding would have destroyed the USA as a country/nation-state.

 

[GohanLSSJ2]

Not arguing that the Union of the time thought, just the idea that the South seceding would have destroyed the USA as a country/nation-state.

Agreed. The Union didn't really need the South. They could've become a Great Power even without it. Part of the reasons I like these CSA suceeds in seceding scenarios is to show how the US can do well enough, and in some areas even better, without the South.

 

[TFSmith121]

Well, that was the question, wasn't it?

Except the idea and nation of the USA didn't (and arguably still doesn't) rely on the South for it to exist. The South can split off and there would indeed still be a United States of America; it's not a geographically-specific entity (okay, except for the 'America' part) it's the summation of cultures and ideas and a unique political system. States are still united, just some others have left; perpetual singular organic unity is not a prerequisite for the US nation-state.

Well, that was the question, wasn't it?

The point is, if any state seceded, the entire country was at risk; the Americans of Lincoln's generation were the grandchildren of the Revolutionary generation, had seen or heard of the brutal realities of what European power politics run rampant had rippled across to the Americas, and had seen the aftermath of disunity and instability in Mexico and across Latin America.

They were, obviously, trying to avoid that, and saw allowing secession to go forward was suicide.

As has been said, the Civil War was an existential crisis for the United States; any outcome other than destruction of the rebellion would have led to anarchy, in the United States and, quite frankly, the Confederacy, which was even more brittle than the US was... as witness West Virginia and the conflicts internal to the rebel states, ranging from North Carolina to Alabama.

Best,

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Not quite sure on how to vote on this poll (really seems better like a yes or no question IMO) but I suppose I can say their chances were better than some, worse than others.

 

[galveston bay]

Agreed. The Union didn't really need the South. They could've become a Great Power even without it. Part of the reasons I like these CSA suceeds in seceding scenarios is to show how the US can do well enough, and in some areas even better, without the South.

well speaking as a Southerner and the descendant of those who fought in the Civil War.... the South definitely needs the rest of the Country

 

[GohanLSSJ2]

Anyone in particular you have in mind?

Because 1) after all, simply suggest that granting the same boon to the US brings in a host of professionals who were casualties in 1861-62, ranging from Lyons to Richardson to Stevens to Kearny to etc...

As far as 2) goes, considering the four decades difference between US independence and Mexican independence, and the advantages that gace the US in terms of economic and demographic development and internal stability by 1846, good luck.

Best,

I'm aware it can wirk either way. The CSA's small chances rely on almost bkind luck for acenario 1.

As for point 2. Already done.

 

[Arafeel]

Did the Confederacy Have a Chance to Win the American Civil War?
Short answer, Yes.

While it is true that the north was stronger both in demographics and economic factors, history, and specifically north american history shows us that it is possible for the weaker defending part in a armed conflict to defeat a stronger invading part, as seen during the american war of independence, the war of 1812, the Texas war of independens and the French invasion of Mexico. Off-course we have also seen that the stronger invading part defeat the weaker, as seen during the American Mexican war, the american civil war and the american part of the 7yrs war.

 

[TFSmith121]

Except in the 1775-83, 1812-15, and 1861-67 conflicts

Did the Confederacy Have a Chance to Win the American Civil War?
Short answer, Yes.

While it is true that the north was stronger both in demographics and economic factors, history, and specifically north american history shows us that it is possible for the weaker defending part in a armed conflict to defeat a stronger invading part, as seen during the american war of independence, the war of 1812, the Texas war of independens and the French invasion of Mexico. Off-course we have also seen that the stronger invading part defeat the weaker, as seen during the American Mexican war, the american civil war and the american part of the 7yrs war.

Except in the 1775-83, 1812-15, and 1861-67 conflicts, the invaders were trying to do so from the Eastern Hemisphere.

In the Texas Revolution, given the relative states of development and political stability in Texas and Mexico, and the realities of transportation north from Mexico City to the borderlands, time and distance was again, on the side of the "locals."

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

Okay, but there comes a time when vanishingly small chances

I'm aware it can work either way. The CSA's small chances rely on almost blind luck for scenario 1. As for point 2. Already done.

Okay, but there comes a time when vanishingly small chances ... vanish.

Best,

 

[Indicus]

The Confederacy did have a chance. Of course, the war was tilted against them, but if they continued to fight an increasingly bloody war of attrition and the Union remained in the command of horrible generals like McClellan, it is entirely possible for the Peace Democrats to win in 1864 and then, of course, a peace is signed.

 

[Dave Howery]

In the Texas Revolution, given the relative states of development and political stability in Texas and Mexico, and the realities of transportation north from Mexico City to the borderlands, time and distance was again, on the side of the "locals."

Best,

in the Texan revolution, the 'locals' won only because Santa Anna split up his forces a lot and because the Texans were blindly lucky enough to capture SA alive and force him to sign away TX/give them independence. If they hadn't captured SA, if the Mexicans had kept their forces concentrated, or (worst of all) if Urrea (probably the best commanding officer on both sides) had been in charge instead of SA, the Texans would have been crushed...

 

[Arafeel]

Except in the 1775-83, 1812-15.....

1812-15 is a US invasion of Canada, and between 30-35000 americans fought for the crown on land (there were more in the navy) during the revolution, the crown did not lose all of their colonies during the conflict either.

 

[GohanLSSJ2]

Okay, but there comes a time when vanishingly small chances ... vanish.

Best,

I know. But hey, nothing's written in stone.

That said, I admit the main reason I wanna see an independent CSA is to have Latin American and Caribbean countries have a shot at wiping the floor with them.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

1812-15 is a US invasion of Canada

Hell, using the 1812-15 example, it's pretty abundantly clear that the side with the most population and resources doesn't automatically win. Hell the US had a population of 7 million to a Canadian population of 400,000, along with more industry that Britain had in theater.

What they conspicuously lacked was the political will to prosecute the war, even after Britain invaded and torched Washington.

Makes me doubt the idea that it would be impossible for the voting northern public to lose heart and ask for peace.

 

[Saphroneth]

I know. But hey, nothing's written in stone.

That said, I admit the main reason I wanna see an independent CSA is to have Latin American and Caribbean countries have a shot at wiping the floor with them.

For my part I'd love to see what would happen if - as often took place in Zanzibar - Jack Tar took it upon himself to spontaneously burn the slave baracoons in Charleston and free the slaves.

 

[TFSmith121]

1814-15 is a British Invasion of the US (three failed ones, in fact)

1812-15 is a US invasion of Canada, and between 30-35000 americans fought for the crown on land (there were more in the navy) during the revolution, the crown did not lose all of their colonies during the conflict either.

1814-15 is a British invasion of the US (three of them, in fact, and they all failed).

And whatever the Loyalists and BNA were in 1775-83, they certainly were not among the nation states engaged in the war; certainly not when every bullet and most of the beans and buttons were coming from 3000 miles away.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

If that's what you want, write a parable

I know. But hey, nothing's written in stone.

That said, I admit the main reason I wanna see an independent CSA is to have Latin American and Caribbean countries have a shot at wiping the floor with them.

If that's what you want, write a parable. Worked for Tolkien, after all.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

Prosecuted the hell out of it for Ross, Downie,

Hell, using the 1812-15 example, it's pretty abundantly clear that the side with the most population and resources doesn't automatically win. Hell the US had a population of 7 million to a Canadian population of 400,000, along with more industry that Britain had in theater.
What they conspicuously lacked was the political will to prosecute the war, even after Britain invaded and torched Washington. Makes me doubt the idea that it would be impossible for the voting northern public to lose heart and ask for peace.

Prosecuted the hell out of it for Ross, Downie, Pakenham, Gibbs, and their merry men, though.

Prevost had a division of British regulars and the RN in support at Plattsburgh and was defeated and turned back; Ross ended up making an appointment with a bullet at North Point and his troops got turned back at Hampstead Hill, just as the RN got turned back at Fort McHenry and Ferry Branch; and Pakenham and Gibbs were defeated handily at New Orleans, despite RN support at Lake Borgne.

Who was it whose public was tired of it all after almost six decades of nearly constant warfare, again?

Best,