Greatest chance for Confederate Victory
- Thread starter Anaxagoras
- Start date
- Status
After much deliberation I went with "other" because you really need multiple choices. The South needed a number of these options to happen notably the following four:
* Britain enters the war because of the Trent Affair
* Grant defeated at Shiloh
* Lee's Lost Orders not lost, Maryland Campaign successful
* Army of Cumberland destroyed after Chickamauga
But there probably needs a few other things as well:
* The first is a better supply & logisitical sitution in the South.
* The second is some well organised & efficient Black Labour Corps. Maybe even some Black Regiments.
* A third, due to the lower CSA population compared to the USA, is the possibility of having women in the workforce thus freeing up more white men for the military.
I doubt, though, that the last two options would have been implemented in full (although there was a half hearted Labour Corps), but it would have ensured at least 100 000 more men in the army. That alone could have made a difference: especially out west for the South.
* Britain enters the war because of the Trent Affair
* Grant defeated at Shiloh
* Lee's Lost Orders not lost, Maryland Campaign successful
* Army of Cumberland destroyed after Chickamauga
But there probably needs a few other things as well:
* The first is a better supply & logisitical sitution in the South.
* The second is some well organised & efficient Black Labour Corps. Maybe even some Black Regiments.
* A third, due to the lower CSA population compared to the USA, is the possibility of having women in the workforce thus freeing up more white men for the military.
I doubt, though, that the last two options would have been implemented in full (although there was a half hearted Labour Corps), but it would have ensured at least 100 000 more men in the army. That alone could have made a difference: especially out west for the South.
Xen
Banned
At the end of the war, around late 1864, I seem to recall Davis emancipating the south's slaves or promising too if he could get the United Kingdom and France to join his cause. He offered a pretty nice package up, but Britain knew the war was lost and the prospect of trying to transport troops across the Atlantic Ocean to fight a landwar against a battle hardened, well equipped Union army would have been more than she was willing to risk. Even if victory was assured, it would probably have been the bloodiest war in Britains history, and could have made the US a permanent enemy, which isnt good for trade, and would just leave a mess for later generations to resolve.
Now if Davis offered this package in 1862, it might have been different, and though the US would probably be bitter it would have been far less so. Britain could make itself appear as more of a peace broker rather than an aggressor.
I cant remember exactly what it was Davis promised the nations in Europe though.
Now if Davis offered this package in 1862, it might have been different, and though the US would probably be bitter it would have been far less so. Britain could make itself appear as more of a peace broker rather than an aggressor.
I cant remember exactly what it was Davis promised the nations in Europe though.
Xen said:
Yeah I agree. In 1862, with such a shift in the South's attitude towards slavery, especially if the military gains several regiments, I'd dare say that there'll be a lot changes in the ACW. Not only do the Rebs gain more troops (maybe at least 50 000 extra troops - maybe as high as 100 000 more troops), which are desperately needed in the western theatre, but the main sticking point for the British & French are removed.
I still wonder though, due to the political realities of the day, even if Davis pushed hard for this, whether he'd be successful with such a dramatic policy reform. Afterall, the Confederacy was really built upon the institution of slavery. Take that away & there wasn't much point in rebelling in the first place.
Anaxagoras
Banned
I think proposals for emancipating the slaves and enlisting blacks into the Confederate army are unrealistic, for political reasons. Patrick Cleburne's proposal to do just that was made in early 1864, after the defeats at Gettysburg, Vicksburg and Chattanooga, and was considered so shocking that the Confederate government imposed a gag order (and possibly caused Cleburne to miss out on a deserved promotion to corps commander).
the posters are right....
the rebs let lincoln determine the moral issue, slavery, was a central issue of the war. all the romantic luster of the southern cause was tarnished after that.
all the above choices are good, but the basic reason behind the fall of the rebel movement was a weak central govenment.
the rebs let lincoln determine the moral issue, slavery, was a central issue of the war. all the romantic luster of the southern cause was tarnished after that.
all the above choices are good, but the basic reason behind the fall of the rebel movement was a weak central govenment.
The question then begs itself: Why bother breaking away from the Union in the first place if you give up on the major issue that made you really pissed in the first place?Oh I agree. But looking at it in hindsight (always a great thing) freeing the slaves etc was probably the answer to all of the Confederacy's woes in fighting & surviving the ACW.
edit: I also think the Border States siding with the CSA, Lee not losing his orders, and/or Vicksburg not falling would help along the Confederate cause greatly.
The loss of New Orleans in 62 did not help either.
Putting women into men's jobs would have been almost as radical as freeing slaves. It was radical enough in WW1 Britain that it was reversed after the war. Does any one if the idea was ever considered at the time?DMA said:
While I agree that getting something like that passed in 1862 is extremely unrealistic, it is worth noting that, in the end, the Confederacy DID adopt black recruitment, and in so doing, most of their leadership recognized that general emancipation must follow, although they had not yet adopted the actual legislation to do so when the war ended.
At the Hampton Roads Peace Conference in early 1865, Lincoln was pretty much willing to negotiate on everything except Southern Independence. However, independence was the one issue which the Confederate government also refused to negotiate. If the only issue between the two had been slavery, a peace settlement could probably have been brokered then. But it wasn't. The conference broke up over the issue of independence.
Given these facts, the Confederate leadership must have felt there was SOME point in rebelling which was separate from the slavery issue, and made fighting to the bitter end for separate independence to be preferable to early surrender and peaceful reconciliation with the North.
the absolute best chance is for Britain to get involved early in the war... if it's too late, the Union simply has gained too much ground and has built very large and experienced armies, and while Britain could easily blockade the coasts, that won't win the war....
I would agree with Dave. Several of the other options would have increased the south's chance of success, some of them greatly so. However a US attack on Britain, which is what the Trent Incident would have been viewed as if Lincoln had not backed down is the single most important of the various points mentioned. It would have given the north a 2nd front and meant it was blockaded itself, with serious economic problems as a result while the south would no longer have been threaten by the blockage, with all the penalties from that.
Steve
Steve
How about Lincoln issues the Emancipation Proclamation, and Davis says," We allready have plans to free Southern Blacks, It will happen over the next twenty years, we realise that its not all that efficient or cost effective. Slavery therefore, is not the cause of this conflict, rather its the folks in the North who scandalize, and attempt to dominate, the rightious (?) people of the South".
Other Alternative
Although Lee came close at Gettysburg, I for the CSA to have won that battle decisively, a significant officer on the Union side would have had to have been killed. I think a switch in Confederate high command may have changed the war. As much as I admire Lee, I think he wasn't quite capable of leading his men to victory against as well positioned troops as Meade's were at Gettysburg. I think Richmond should have accepted Lee's resignation after Gettysburg and replaced him with someone more capable.
Although Lee came close at Gettysburg, I for the CSA to have won that battle decisively, a significant officer on the Union side would have had to have been killed. I think a switch in Confederate high command may have changed the war. As much as I admire Lee, I think he wasn't quite capable of leading his men to victory against as well positioned troops as Meade's were at Gettysburg. I think Richmond should have accepted Lee's resignation after Gettysburg and replaced him with someone more capable.
Pacific Republic
I went with “other” for an economic reason.
At the outbreak of the war, Colonel (brevet Brigadier General) Albert Sidney Johnston, commanding the Department of the Pacific, co-operates in establishing the Pacific Republic, consisting of California and Oregon. The Pacific Republic is specifically distinct from the Confederate States of America, being founded on the cause of freedom and traditional popular sovereignty. Although much of the support for secession is from the “southern” population of California, slavery is not an issue. That decision had already been made. Isolation and general “cussedness” play their role.
Perhaps, the Californios see an opportunity to restore some of their standing. Maybe, Mariano Vallejo weighs in.
OTL, California had a very high per capita military participation. With that, Oregon might be subdued.
Nevada also had a substantial “southern” population, many of whom had come from California. Nevada could soon adhere to the Pacific Republic.
If successful in Oregon, the Pacific Republic might also acquire Washington Territory.
New Mexico Territory would be significantly harder to obtain, since the population centers were closer to Texas and more likely to be acquired by the Confederate States of America than the Pacific Republic.
The Latter Day Saint settlers of Utah, and other areas of the Great Basin and the other settler of the west at that time were often not on good terms, so adherence of the Latter Day Saints to the Pacific Republic would not be likely. If circumstances were to permit, they might establish their own nation.
The critical importance of the Pacific Republic is economic. If the California and Nevada components were quickly to be effective, regardless of what happens with Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, or Utah, the Union would be deprived of the resources of the Mother Lode and the Comstock. Some significant sinews of war would be severed.
Not that the Confederate States of America would succeed to those sinews. Overland transportation would be difficult. The Union navy could be expected to interdict sea transport. Some sort of financing scheme might be created, but, without good communications, would be difficult. And the interests of the two nations would co-incide only in part. The only gain for the Pacific Republic in subsidizing the Confederate States of America would be a greater likelihood of independence. With the secession of both groups of states, that might not be necessary.
Whatever the long run for the Pacific Republic, the Union is deprived of the resources of the Mother Lode and the Comstock.
I went with “other” for an economic reason.
At the outbreak of the war, Colonel (brevet Brigadier General) Albert Sidney Johnston, commanding the Department of the Pacific, co-operates in establishing the Pacific Republic, consisting of California and Oregon. The Pacific Republic is specifically distinct from the Confederate States of America, being founded on the cause of freedom and traditional popular sovereignty. Although much of the support for secession is from the “southern” population of California, slavery is not an issue. That decision had already been made. Isolation and general “cussedness” play their role.
Perhaps, the Californios see an opportunity to restore some of their standing. Maybe, Mariano Vallejo weighs in.
OTL, California had a very high per capita military participation. With that, Oregon might be subdued.
Nevada also had a substantial “southern” population, many of whom had come from California. Nevada could soon adhere to the Pacific Republic.
If successful in Oregon, the Pacific Republic might also acquire Washington Territory.
New Mexico Territory would be significantly harder to obtain, since the population centers were closer to Texas and more likely to be acquired by the Confederate States of America than the Pacific Republic.
The Latter Day Saint settlers of Utah, and other areas of the Great Basin and the other settler of the west at that time were often not on good terms, so adherence of the Latter Day Saints to the Pacific Republic would not be likely. If circumstances were to permit, they might establish their own nation.
The critical importance of the Pacific Republic is economic. If the California and Nevada components were quickly to be effective, regardless of what happens with Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, or Utah, the Union would be deprived of the resources of the Mother Lode and the Comstock. Some significant sinews of war would be severed.
Not that the Confederate States of America would succeed to those sinews. Overland transportation would be difficult. The Union navy could be expected to interdict sea transport. Some sort of financing scheme might be created, but, without good communications, would be difficult. And the interests of the two nations would co-incide only in part. The only gain for the Pacific Republic in subsidizing the Confederate States of America would be a greater likelihood of independence. With the secession of both groups of states, that might not be necessary.
Whatever the long run for the Pacific Republic, the Union is deprived of the resources of the Mother Lode and the Comstock.
The Civil War was as much about States Rights as about slavery. States Rights was about how states were more important than the federal govt., and that the govt. shouldn't be able to tell the states what to do (like end slavery). With that in mind, it's alright if states choose to end slavery/use black troops, but it's not alright for the federal govt. to make them do so.
- Status