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

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

  • No chance. Zero. Zilch. Nada. None.

    Votes: 45 7.6%
  • It technically had a chance, like there is a chance of flipping heads ten times in a row.

    Votes: 241 40.4%
  • It had a chance, but it was unlikely.

    Votes: 262 44.0%
  • Maybe a 50-50 chance.

    Votes: 22 3.7%
  • Sure, it had a perfectly decent chance to win.

    Votes: 23 3.9%
  • I'm actually surprised it lost.

    Votes: 3 0.5%

  • Total voters
    596

ben0628

Banned
If the Confederates are legitimately resurgent sure, but in a situation where the only difference is Atlanta not being taken or something of the like, McClellan's not exactly going to follow through on his platform now is he? A POD earlier than mid 1864 at least?

As I said earlier, you need the South to do better in 1863 instead. Vicksburg and Port Hudson hold out longer or break the sieges/break out of sieges, either have Lee win Gettysburg or avoid it.
 
While I do believe Southern Independence was indeed possible, I still believe the South's chances would increase if the Civil War was to spark sooner.

Furthermore, they need better leaders. Also, A.S. Johnston surviving would do wonders. Having Northrop NOT getting in charge of supplies can work, too. But most importantly... They need more rail-lines and telegraphs.

PS: You guys rebooted the thread because TFSmith was banned, didn't you?
 
Was A.S. Johnston especially good tho? I mean probably better than what came after; but his performance before and during Shiloh doesn't exactly shout excellence. But I agree that Northrop getting fragged or something would have been a godsend for the south.
 

ben0628

Banned
Was A.S. Johnston especially good tho? I mean probably better than what came after; but his performance before and during Shiloh doesn't exactly shout excellence. But I agree that Northrop getting fragged or something would have been a godsend for the south.

Although the Battle of Shiloh would still have been a defeat, Bragg will never be in command so one can assume the South does better in Tennessee and maybe Kentucky in 1863.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
But I agree that Northrop getting fragged or something would have been a godsend for the south.

The fact that the Southern armies lacked proper food during most of the war is due at least as much, if not more, to Northrop's incompetence than anything else. If the Yankees had never wrecked a mile of railroad or occupied a single farm, Northrop would still have been unable to properly feed the men.
 
While I do believe Southern Independence was indeed possible, I still believe the South's chances would increase if the Civil War was to spark sooner.

Furthermore, they need better leaders. Also, A.S. Johnston surviving would do wonders. Having Northrop NOT getting in charge of supplies can work, too. But most importantly... They need more rail-lines and telegraphs.

PS: You guys rebooted the thread because TFSmith was banned, didn't you?

Don't forget quicker and luckier. Remember, all those battles produced high casualties for BOTH sides and the north can absorb them more easily. I agree with those posts above that the 1864 election was the best chance for the Confederacy to win, but in order to force the north's hands they would have had to win, and win decisively, far more major battles than they actually did. You would need A quick end to the war because once the north got fully into the war effort It got more and more difficult for the south to pull off the win.
 
Don't forget quicker and luckier. Remember, all those battles produced high casualties for BOTH sides and the north can absorb them more easily. I agree with those posts above that the 1864 election was the best chance for the Confederacy to win, but in order to force the north's hands they would have had to win, and win decisively, far more major battles than they actually did. You would need A quick end to the war because once the north got fully into the war effort It got more and more difficult for the south to pull off the win.

IMWO the best chance the CSA had to not lose battles as opposed to winning decisively. Stand on the defensive (no invasions of the North) and just try to wear the US down to the point where you get a different result in the 1864 election. That really was the only chance the CSA had - hold on long enough that the North quits.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
IMWO the best chance the CSA had to not lose battles as opposed to winning decisively. Stand on the defensive (no invasions of the North) and just try to wear the US down to the point where you get a different result in the 1864 election. That really was the only chance the CSA had - hold on long enough that the North quits.

I agree. Barring foreign intervention, it was the only way the South could have won. No amount of greater military success in 1861-63 could have brought the South victory. Even a Cannae-level victory at Gettysburg probably wouldn't have been enough. If the South was going to win, it was going to do it in 1864.
 
IMWO the best chance the CSA had to not lose battles as opposed to winning decisively. Stand on the defensive (no invasions of the North) and just try to wear the US down to the point where you get a different result in the 1864 election. That really was the only chance the CSA had - hold on long enough that the North quits.
I see your point but I don't truly buy the 'If the CSA had fought defensively they could have won' argument. The thing is, is that for the defensive strategy to work they needed to both be able to be strong enough to bog down every northern offensive into the confederacy, which they failed spectacularly to do in the west, and absorb casualties and maintain public (and ability to) support the war for longer than the Union could. While it is certainly theoretically possible for that to happen, I think it is still unlikely in the extreme for the CSA to actually win with the defensive strategy.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
South had three low probability chances (in order):

1. Trent Affair blows up. This doesn't necessary require the British to go active into warfare with the U.S. The U.S. bought half a million rifles from Enfield just after the Affair, so even an arms embargo would be extremely damaging. Arguing against this is the fact that the UK was buying roughly 40% of its coarse grain from the U.S. at the time and no ready replacement source was available.

2. Jubal Early takes the high ground on day 1 at Gettysburg, forcing Meade to try to dislodge the Army of Northern Virginia from some of the best defensive ground seen during the Civil War. If Meade's forces are mauled Washington is in danger. OR Hill's forces take Little Round Top on Day Two allowing them to roll up Meade's entire line. This puts Lee's forces between most of the Army of the Potomac and Washington. Arguing against this is that even in a mauled state the Army of the Potomac is a strong enough command that, while supported by the forts ringing the Capital, Lee is likely to break his army attempting to carry the fortifications.

3. McClellan wins the 1864 election. This requires a much more negative perception of the war by the electorate of the North (which requires several separate noteworthy POD). The pre-conditions to allow this are extremely low, but still above Zero.

None of these are reasonably possible. None, IMO, have even a 10% chance of occurring, # 3 is 1% or less. Still 1% is a chance. So call it extremely unlikely
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
I see your point but I don't truly buy the 'If the CSA had fought defensively they could have won' argument. The thing is, is that for the defensive strategy to work they needed to both be able to be strong enough to bog down every northern offensive into the confederacy, which they failed spectacularly to do in the west, and absorb casualties and maintain public (and ability to) support the war for longer than the Union could. While it is certainly theoretically possible for that to happen, I think it is still unlikely in the extreme for the CSA to actually win with the defensive strategy.

You might say that there was the Lee Strategy and the Johnston Strategy. Both were centered on the same ultimate aim: destroying the will of the Northern public to continue the war. Joseph Johnston thought this would best be done by preserving the manpower resources of the South so as to prolong resistance as much as possible, therefore fighting only on the defensive or when an opportunity for decisive success presented itself (either through luck or an opponent's mistake). Robert E. Lee thought this would best be done by inflicting demoralizing and humiliating battlefield defeats on the Union, thereby damaging Northern morale. The problem with Johnston's strategy is that it allowed the Union to maintain the initiative and he never got the chance to fight the great battle he wanted to fight (unless, of course, you live in the alternate timeline of Shattered Nation). Lee's strategy worked for years, in that his victories damaged Union morale, but he couldn't keep it up because his victories cost his army an enormous cost in casualties.

But simply because neither of these strategies worked IOTL doesn't mean one or both of them couldn't have worked in an ATL.
 
South had three low probability chances (in order):

1. Trent Affair blows up. This doesn't necessary require the British to go active into warfare with the U.S. The U.S. bought half a million rifles from Enfield just after the Affair, so even an arms embargo would be extremely damaging. Arguing against this is the fact that the UK was buying roughly 40% of its coarse grain from the U.S. at the time and no ready replacement source was available.

2. Jubal Early takes the high ground on day 1 at Gettysburg, forcing Meade to try to dislodge the Army of Northern Virginia from some of the best defensive ground seen during the Civil War. If Meade's forces are mauled Washington is in danger. OR Hill's forces take Little Round Top on Day Two allowing them to roll up Meade's entire line. This puts Lee's forces between most of the Army of the Potomac and Washington. Arguing against this is that even in a mauled state the Army of the Potomac is a strong enough command that, while supported by the forts ringing the Capital, Lee is likely to break his army attempting to carry the fortifications.

3. McClellan wins the 1864 election. This requires a much more negative perception of the war by the electorate of the North (which requires several separate noteworthy POD). The pre-conditions to allow this are extremely low, but still above Zero.

None of these are reasonably possible. None, IMO, have even a 10% chance of occurring, # 3 is 1% or less. Still 1% is a chance. So call it extremely unlikely

I went with option 3 when I did my timeline a few years back as it seemed the least unlikely of the unlikely choices and I agree, all of the probabilities are extremely low.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/divided-america-an-alternate-19th-century.390129/
 
I see your point but I don't truly buy the 'If the CSA had fought defensively they could have won' argument. The thing is, is that for the defensive strategy to work they needed to both be able to be strong enough to bog down every northern offensive into the confederacy, which they failed spectacularly to do in the west, and absorb casualties and maintain public (and ability to) support the war for longer than the Union could. While it is certainly theoretically possible for that to happen, I think it is still unlikely in the extreme for the CSA to actually win with the defensive strategy.

Totally agree, you pointed out the fatal flaw in my theory. Once the Union adopted what was more or less the Anaconda Plan it is very hard for the CSA to wear the Union down without getting worn down itself. However, absent foreign intervention, IMWO the best but still not very likely road to victory for the CSA is to conserve its resources by fighting a defensive war and frustrating the Union enough that popular will goes against the war in time for the 1864 election. Again, not likely to work but IMWO the least crappy of a list of crappy options absent foreign interventions.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
However, absent foreign intervention, IMWO the best but still not very likely road to victory for the CSA is to conserve its resources by fighting a defensive war and frustrating the Union enough that popular will goes against the war in time for the 1864 election. Again, not likely to work but IMWO the least crappy of a list of crappy options absent foreign interventions.

Imagine a defensive (though not, strictly speaking, a Fabian) strategy in which the South avoided a few of its major tactical and strategic errors. If Lee had declined to attack at Malvern Hill, hadn't stayed to fight at Antietam, hadn't attacked the third day at Gettysburg - in other words, if he had followed his general strategy but simply done it more effectively, the South could have ended the war in Virginia in late 1864 in quite a strong position. Ditto in the West. I really think that it was a question of the South losing, rather than the North winning, the war.
 
The South suffered from the The Dunning–Kruger effect, which is a cognitive bias in which relatively unskilled persons suffer illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than it really is. Dunning and Kruger attributed this bias to a metacognitive inabiility of the unskilled to recognize their own ineptitude and evaluate their own ability accurately. They really did think that one Southerner was worth ten Yankees in a fight and that the North would give up in despair. The the tough country and farm kids from all over the north proved them wrong. The boys from the cities trained up fairly tough as well. My wife's great-grandfather was a sergeant in B Company, Berdan's First Regiment of Sharpshooters. He was severely wounded at Malvern Hill, Gettysburg, some other place, and finally invalided out at Petersburg. The family has a letter written immediately before Gettysburg where he wrote a letter to his fiancee in Michigan something to the effect that '...there is a big battle coming up and there is a strong chance that I shall be killed or severely wounded, but my sacrifice to save the Union is well worth it..."
 
Top