ACW: Strangle the South

It is often said that, as the Confederacy was fighting a defensive war, they simply had to not lose in order to win.

My question is this: If, for whatever reason, the Union was simply content to impose a complete blockade of the Confederacy on land, sea, and the major rivers (mainly Mississippi), could the South have outlasted the Union?

My instincts say that this strategy would have still resulted in a Union victory, though how long it would take, I'm not sure. Economically, the sheer number of men in arms in the Confederacy was simply unsustainable. As a ratio of the free male population, it just was far too high a number to be able to be supported for long. The economy was also nowhere near self-sufficient enough, with its agriculture focused on cash crops and its industry and infrastructure virtualky non-existent.
 
There are several things wrong with this concept. First you would have to have another President other than Lincoln. How many times did he kick McClellan in the ass to get him to attack in 1862? Also the United States spent millions of dollars to raise armies, are they really going to sit in camps and wait for the CSA to realize they cannot sustain themselves? Is the Confederacy going to sit idly by while they slowly starve and go bankrupt? The CSA had a lot of aggressive commanders who would go on the offensive, rather than wait for the USA to come to them. The CSA would still attempt to break the blockade and try to seize key terrain. If the USA was content to simply watch and wait, they may as well let them go their own way. Nothing personal, but your concept is unrealistic.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Political reality would force whomever is in charge of the Union war effort to take the offensive. Besides, this might lead to foreign recognition of the Confederacy by foreign powers, since the Confederacy would have a much greater claim to nationhood if the United States is not actively trying to reincorporate it. Prime Minister Palmerston and Napoleon III would not see much of a downside to recognition, especially since there would be no Emancipation Proclamation in this scenario.
 
Political reality would force whomever is in charge of the Union war effort to take the offensive. Besides, this might lead to foreign recognition of the Confederacy by foreign powers, since the Confederacy would have a much greater claim to nationhood if the United States is not actively trying to reincorporate it. Prime Minister Palmerston and Napoleon III would not see much of a downside to recognition, especially since there would be no Emancipation Proclamation in this scenario.

Excellent point, Confederate diplomats could point out that the USA does not even have the honor to meet us on the field of battle, but is content with starving our people and destroying our economy.
 
Why assume no Emancipation Proclamation?

Because Lincoln felt he needed a military victory to back it up else it would just look an effort to get the slaves to die on his behalf.

"We are fighting for the freedom of oppressed slaves (*cough* barring those in loyal states)" Sounds a lot better than;

"Will the slaves please fight for us with their bare hands as us free folks really cannot be bothered with this fighting business, it sounds like hard work."
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Economically, the sheer number of men in arms in the Confederacy was simply unsustainable.

But if the North is not actively invading the South, they won't need as many men in their army as they had IOTL. Moreover, in the absence of Union raids and military needs, the railroads will function much better than they did IOTL. All this points to a much more agriculturally self-sufficient Confederacy.
 
While this scenario does't call for aggressive invasions of southern territory, I still think the confederates would be unwise to let their guard down.
 
While this scenario does't call for aggressive invasions of southern territory, I still think the confederates would be unwise to let their guard down.

Yes but you need a lot fewer soldiers to cover a given position while the militia muster than you do to actively expel invading troops from your territory. A key part of the Anaconda plan was the advance down the Mississippi that forced the rebel states to commit troops against superior Union resources.

One of the points raised above repeatedly is that of recognition and longevity is often regarded as akin to legitimacy in defining governments. I can see that you are arguing that maybe the Union could have spent time rather than blood but the problem was in identifying how much time the Union would have that it could spend. That and underestimating the cost in blood is what drove many of the IMO premature offensives in the east.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Just as the Civil War without the blockade is not ideal, the Civil War with just the blockade is effectively a non-starter. It would take substantially more shipbuilding over OTL to close the blockade much earlier than OTL (indeed, it took several fairly major invasions like New Orleans to lock down the coast, and it was still at question until Mobile Bay) and if the CSA is a nation in being in a major way as of 1864, the spectre of a Peace President raises itself.

That being said, I think it is plausible that the US would start out confidently assuming it can blockade the CSA into irrelevance. That might delay things considerably.
 
Top