Did the Confederate States Really Have a Chance?

[Kaptin Kurk]

For the Confederacy, "victory" means a peace that leaves them free and independent of the United States. This could have been achieved with any number of PODs. All the South has to do is destroy the Union resolve to continue the fight, which means convincing the Northern public the price of the war in blood and treasure is too high to justify continuing the war.

Suppose the Battle of the Wilderness was a Confederate victory comparable to Second Manassas or the Battle of Kennesaw Mountain was a victory comparable to Fredericksburg? With elections nearing, it was entirely possible that a peace candidate would win the White House and be willing to enter a negotiated peace.

A common refrain is that the South only lasted as long as it did because it had better generals than the North. I myself don't accept this. Sure, the North had folks like McClellan and Burnside, but then the South had folks like Hood, Bragg, Polk and a whole host of other incompetents. The South lasted as long as it did because it was a very difficult task to win a mid-19th Century total war.

The Assumption that McCleellan would have let the South become independent is a big one, and one I don't think is supported by history. After Gettysburg, Peace with the South in Northern Eyes largely meant Re-Union with Slavery left in place. I don't think even McClellan contemplated letting the south go independent.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

You can count me among the "Lost Cause Mythology" skeptics -- the Union had many points when it was in real trouble, when Lincoln, for all his determination, might have seen his hand forced (eg Ariosto's mentioned scenario above).

 

[Elfwine]

You can count me among the "Lost Cause Mythology" skeptics -- the Union had many points when it was in real trouble, when Lincoln, for all his determination, might have seen his hand forced (eg Ariosto's mentioned scenario above).

Ariosto's mentioned scenario above requires both a) the ANV to be pushed to its limits, and b) the Union will to fight to be weak and feeble.

I wouldn't say that the Union was never challenged - it obviously was. But it was never pushed to the point where it breaking was more than a possibility.

Lincoln had to worry about 10% chances. We, from the perspective of those weighing what could be done with what the ANV actually had instead of what it might have had, don't.

 

[Kaptin Kurk]

Ariosto's mentioned scenario above requires both a) the ANV to be pushed to its limits, and b) the Union will to fight to be weak and feeble.

I wouldn't say that the Union was never challenged - it obviously was. But it was never pushed to the point where it breaking was more than a possibility.

Lincoln had to worry about 10% chances. We, from the perspective of those weighing what could be done with what the ANV actually had instead of what it might have had, don't.

Anything is possible. What this thread asks us to do is, assumingly with hindsight, weight probabilities. For the South to win its independece, it would have to roll sixes ten times in a row. That is possible, but not likely. No one can say, the south couldn't roll sixes ten times in a row, without a single union interuprtion, but we can say it's unlikely.

 

[Michael B]

Lincoln was a great president. Replacing Lincoln with Seward or Chase makes the union less capable. A Stephen Douglas that dies in 1861, a Fremont Presidency or a Fear, Loathing or Cotton style situation, could well end the Union outright.

The way the votes would fall and the personalities involved Lincoln was not going to easily lose the election. You have to either get him not to run for president at all or incapacitate him through diseases or accident.

 

[Elfwine]

Anything is possible. What this thread asks us to do is, assumingly with hindsight, weight probabilities. For the South to win its independece, it would have to roll sixes ten times in a row. That is possible, but not likely. No one can say, the south couldn't roll sixes ten times in a row, without a single union interuprtion, but we can say it's unlikely.

The problem is that underlined bit. The Confederacy is not only facing vastly superior material resources, it's facing competently lead opposition.

McClellan may be all but a coward, but the Army of the Potomac is too tough an army for <50,000 starving ragamuffins to overcome (at best) 3 to 2 odds decisively.

 

[Blue Max]

The way the votes would fall and the personalities involved Lincoln was not going to easily lose the election. You have to either get him not to run for president at all or incapacitate him through diseases or accident.

Depends on how tight we're being on PoDs. We don't need to start in 1860; I'd think that Confederate Odds are slim at that point.

Suppose that Stephen Douglas decides that he can beat Lincoln without agreeing to a series of debates, and ultimately proves to be correct (as he was OTL). Douglas winds up with lukewarm Southern support in the 1860 election, so the party doesn't split, while Lincoln is too low profile to be the nominee.

Douglas wins the Democratic Nomination and then the Presidency, in a matchup between himself and William Seward, as a mandate for Popular Sovereignty.

President Douglas then dies in 1861, leaving former Georgia Governor Herschel Johnson as PotUS; with the national rift over Slavery intensifying, Johnson winds up provoking the Civil War with a northern secession--and this is then defeated.

There is no "Confederacy", but there is slavery until the 1930s.

 

[Elfwine]

Depends on how tight we're being on PoDs. We don't need to start in 1860; I'd think that Confederate Odds are slim at that point.

Suppose that Stephen Douglas decides that he can beat Lincoln without agreeing to a series of debates, and ultimately proves to be correct (as he was OTL). Douglas winds up with lukewarm Southern support in the 1860 election, so the party doesn't split, while Lincoln is too low profile to be the nominee.

Not sure how Douglas's position is stronger without the debates as opposed to with them.

 

[GOU Limiting Factor]

One way to finesse this is to tweak the definition of 'Confederacy' - start peeling off states and see if there's a way to make a viable (for pretty flexible definitions of 'viable') state out of the rest, or start with Mississippi and South Carolina and build out.

There's also the whole awkward question of whether an independent Confederacy will try to claim federal territory in the west (OTL the answer was 'yes', which made war and thus failure inevitable), which can also be finessed, but at that point it's an open question whether or not the resulting state is going to resemble the OTL Confederacy very much. It's a lot like attempts to improve Nazi performance - it's hard, because you're dealing with ideologically blind thugs, and by the time you fix the biggest problems, you're not really talking about the OTL Nazi state.

So maybe start by breaking Davis' neck in a fall...

 

[Elfwine]

So maybe start by breaking Davis' neck in a fall...

. .. and lose one of the more intelligent and reasonable Confederate leaders.

Take a serious look at the opposition to and alternatives to Davis. Narrow minded, self-righteous, and stubborn he may have been, but plenty were worse - and I'm at a loss for who was better and in a position to become Confederate president.

 

[GOU Limiting Factor]

Oh, no, I agree with you. You'd still need to fiddle with the start of the war for it to work; my point is that once you change the Confederacy enough that a peaceful secession is possible you're already in make-shit-up land.

The only reason I ever toy with successful-Confederacy PODs is to examine the later failure modes of Confederate society. The Confederate equivalent of the Whiskey Rebellion would be... entertaining.

 

[Winston Smith]

Not really, the objective conditions were against them.

 

[Anaxagoras]

The Assumption that McCleellan would have let the South become independent is a big one, and one I don't think is supported by history. After Gettysburg, Peace with the South in Northern Eyes largely meant Re-Union with Slavery left in place. I don't think even McClellan contemplated letting the south go independent.

But it may be possible, especially as the course of the war will obviously have changed from OTL if McClellan has won the 1864 election. If the Union public have voted for a Democratic Party in which Copperheads and peace advocates are in the majority (as demonstrated by the platform the party adopted at its Chicago Convention and its choice of George Pendleton for VP), then the people are clearly voting for peace, having decided that bringing the Confederacy back into the Union fold is not worth the price being paid in blood and treasure.

Moreover, if McClellan and the Democrats do adopt a policy of "Reunion With Slavery" in an effort to bring the South back in, what will be the reaction of the Republicans? I would imagine that they would cease to support the war, as they would see it as not worth winning if slavery is going to be permitted to survive.

The stated goal of the Democrats in 1864 was to stop the fighting and start peace talks with the aim of bringing the South back into the Union through negotiation. Since McClellan has won the election in this scenario, we can assume that the war went better for the Confederacy than it did IOTL and they are in a much stronger position in early 1865. If the fighting stops and negotiations begin, I cannot see any reasonable way for the fighting to resume when the Confederates reject terms that don't acknowledge their independence (which is what they would do). The Republicans probably wouldn't support resuming the fighting and the Peace Democrats wouldn't want to in any event. The Confederacy would be independent in all but name.

 

[Blue Max]

Not sure how Douglas's position is stronger without the debates as opposed to with them.

Douglas would never issue the Freeport Doctrine that alienated Southrons if Lincoln didn't press him on Slavery. Indeed, the whole series of debates is regarding slavery. If Douglas is able to present himself as a "middle ground" in 1860, he may well be seen as the last chance for Union. It helps that Lincoln would probably not be the GOP nominee in 1860 as well.

But it may be possible, especially as the course of the war will obviously have changed from OTL if McClellan has won the 1864 election. If the Union public have voted for a Democratic Party in which Copperheads and peace advocates are in the majority (as demonstrated by the platform the party adopted at its Chicago Convention and its choice of George Pendleton for VP), then the people are clearly voting for peace, having decided that bringing the Confederacy back into the Union fold is not worth the price being paid in blood and treasure.

Moreover, if McClellan and the Democrats do adopt a policy of "Reunion With Slavery" in an effort to bring the South back in, what will be the reaction of the Republicans? I would imagine that they would cease to support the war, as they would see it as not worth winning if slavery is going to be permitted to survive.

The stated goal of the Democrats in 1864 was to stop the fighting and start peace talks with the aim of bringing the South back into the Union through negotiation. Since McClellan has won the election in this scenario, we can assume that the war went better for the Confederacy than it did IOTL and they are in a much stronger position in early 1865. If the fighting stops and negotiations begin, I cannot see any reasonable way for the fighting to resume when the Confederates reject terms that don't acknowledge their independence (which is what they would do). The Republicans probably wouldn't support resuming the fighting and the Peace Democrats wouldn't want to in any event. The Confederacy would be independent in all but name.

The reverse is more likely. Lincoln would support reunion with slavery if he had to choose between abolition of slavery and rebuilding the Union. Privately, he felt deeply conflicted about what to do if the Confederacy made that offer. If he lost the election, he'd probably loyally support the war to rebuild the Union, and he'd be able to swing much of the moderates with him.

Of course, its easier to get to 1865 with a viable confederacy if Lincoln never makes it to the White House. I'm not sure who is president in 1861, but unless they've burnt all their bridges demanding emancipation right off the bat they'd probably bend towards Union first--after all, if the Union wins, Slavery's time is still numbered. It's not like the Union will return thousands of 'contrabands' to their owners in Louisiana or Tennessee. There will be no shot of expanding Slavery to Kansas, or any more territories.

If the South agrees to re-entry to the Union and keeping slavery for itself, it's conceded the question it faced in 1850 and beyond--how does it intend to keep the slave bloc as powerful as the rest of the country? There will be no more balance in the Senate, in all likelihood a long period before there is a Southern President, and definitely a lot of distrust throughout the rest of the nation. It holds slavery; perhaps Virginia is reunited, and Confederate Debts and Money are probably not scraps of paper.

Now, maybe in 1864-5 that's a reasonable conclusion. Louisiana is gone; Arkansas and Texas have been severed from the Confederacy; Tennessee is partially occupied. Clearly, the South can't win if McC decides to invest four years to prevail. Perhaps it takes until 1866, no longer, for the South to accept McC's terms--and they may well become less generous as well.

 

[Dave Howery]

it's notable that in the AH story collection, "Dixie Victorious", most of them involve the CSA gaining the UK and France as active allies... basically implying that the CSA ain't gonna do it on their own...

 

[Elfwine]

Douglas would never issue the Freeport Doctrine that alienated Southrons if Lincoln didn't press him on Slavery. Indeed, the whole series of debates is regarding slavery. If Douglas is able to present himself as a "middle ground" in 1860, he may well be seen as the last chance for Union. It helps that Lincoln would probably not be the GOP nominee in 1860 as well.

And middle ground isn't good enough for the South.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Lincoln would support reunion with slavery if he had to choose between abolition of slavery and rebuilding the Union. Privately, he felt deeply conflicted about what to do if the Confederacy made that offer.

Not really a problem, though, as the Confederacy would never have made such an offer. Even as late as March of 1865 IOTL, they said clearly that they would not accept any peace terms that didn't include independence.

it's notable that in the AH story collection, "Dixie Victorious", most of them involve the CSA gaining the UK and France as active allies... basically implying that the CSA ain't gonna do it on their own...

Getting foreign recognition is the easiest way for the South to win, but it was not the only way.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Aside from a few well-known military opportunities, there are a few key decisions that the Confederacy might have made which would have greatly increased their chances of victory. Early in the conflict (perhaps even just before Fort Sumter, I think), Judah Benjamin suggested that the Confederate government immediately purchase as much cotton as it could and ship it to England, where it might have served as a kind of currency reserve. Had the Confederacy adopted this measure, inflation might have been curtailed considerably. And it was inflation, as much as the Union armies, that killed the Confederacy.

 

[Elfwine]

Aside from a few well-known military opportunities, there are a few key decisions that the Confederacy might have made which would have greatly increased their chances of victory. Early in the conflict (perhaps even just before Fort Sumter, I think), Judah Benjamin suggested that the Confederate government immediately purchase as much cotton as it could and ship it to England, where it might have served as a kind of currency reserve. Had the Confederacy adopted this measure, inflation might have been curtailed considerably. And it was inflation, as much as the Union armies, that killed the Confederacy.

Buy it with what? Ship it with what?

 

[M79]

A negotiated peace in 1864 with a different President might work but will be *very* difficult. Keeping Confederate control of Tennessee would be a significant improvement, and if Chickamauga goes very differently you could see inroads in that direction but would need some follow-up battles to go with it. A Union somehow on the run or making very little progress 2-3 years in would do it but how you make that happen would be tricky.

Gettysburg alone is not enough. If Meade traps Lee into following him deeper into Pennsylvania/Maryland he might be able to wipe out the Army of Norther Virignia on the banks of the Susquehanna and end the war by Christmas of 1863. Even a smashing victory at Gettysburg followed by another one shortly thereafter might not be enough (though it would improve Confederate standing and might lead to recognition with a few minor states).

Also just because the Confederacy wins does not mean that she will do well in the postwar world. California and Utah will look on with great interest and the Pacific Northwest is still very sparsely settled. Alaska might never go to the US but instead to Canada, same for Hawaii. And even under the best of circumstances as I see them, you'll have significant problems in the post-war world for both North and South.

-Confederacy eventually becomes like Argentina and probably dies in the late 1950s under corruption, civil rights, and desperate poverty. Texas (+ Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Arkansas with [untenable] claims in New Mexico and Arizona) remains independent and thrives though as a UK protectorate.

-Union lacks a lot of her OTL strength to rebuild after losing much of her territory and manpower, especially with a new foreign power at her doorstep. Socialism makes significant inroads earlier and Communism is a real threat, making her less attractive as a trading partner to UK/Europe.

-By 1960, Confederate standard of living is somewhere between Argentina and Brazil with much of the nation now back in the US while that of the rest of the Union is more akin to Spain