What makes controlling the North American heartland you a superpower? The chain of events that brought USA to have a naval and military presence in West Europe and East Asia is not something the geography of North America itself would have automatically brought.
Official "Did the Confederacy Have a Chance to Win the American Civil War?" Thread
- Thread starter Anaxagoras
- Start date
So right now, by my count, its 107-104 with regards to the South having a possibility of winning. I think its going to remain roughly 50-50 in the poll from here on out.
TFSmith121
Banned
No, more like
No, more like history is built, brick by brick, and humanity forges its future blow by blow, all of which depend upon reality, not wishes.
If a poster wants to wave a wand, great, there's an entire forum for that; has a name and everything.
This is not that forum, correct?
Best,
Heaven forbid people should fantasize on a website that deals with hypotheticals.
No, more like history is built, brick by brick, and humanity forges its future blow by blow, all of which depend upon reality, not wishes.
If a poster wants to wave a wand, great, there's an entire forum for that; has a name and everything.
This is not that forum, correct?
Best,
TFSmith121
Banned
Fertile land in a temperate zone and population makes money
Fertile land in a temperate zone and population makes money; lots of it.
Money buys many things, certainly in the West since 1500 and - generally - across human civilization since (arguably) forever, but certainly 1600 or so.
Best,
Fertile land in a temperate zone and population makes money; lots of it.
Money buys many things, certainly in the West since 1500 and - generally - across human civilization since (arguably) forever, but certainly 1600 or so.
Best,
No matter how hard you try to convince folks, I don't think anyone is going to buy your "Confederate victory is ASB" shtick. You've peddled your wares long enough for us all to hear your arguments, judge them, and respectfully disagree. I suggest you mosey on down the road, for no one is gonna buy your goods here, no matter how long you try to sell them.
Though that must be such a burden for you- letting us all labor in such ignorance.
Financial power doesn´t make you a superpower, more so when in alternate worlds you have no naval hegemony or cultural/economic hegemony over an entire "world"(as of "First", "Second", "Third" type of world) and continent(south America). Also by 1860 you can avoid the world wars´ effect of making Europe way weaker and transfer intelligentsia to the US.
The US "inherited" European science and tech as most of it inhabitants moved here from Europe and they didn't forget everything during the move. The US is much larger than European countries, has no rivals nearby and is one united country instead of a large number of smaller countries. The US had the largest economy in the world by 1890 or so. World wars or no world wars unless some really major catastrophe hits the US it will become a superpower some time in the 20tth Century. It didn't become one by accident.
There was a lot of transfer of patents and scientist during the WW1 and WW2, hard to ignore(plus most people coming were poor and uneducated of course). Also by 1860 naval hegemony for the US IS NOT in any way shape or form determined by the geographic advantages, there are thousands of thing that could have gone wrong politically and militarily and I never stated that Superpower USA is an accident but I disagree that it was determined. Being the largest economy doesn´t make you a superpower, China is not one right now for example for a lot of obvious reasons.
Last edited:
TFSmith121
Banned
Wealth, in terms both monetary, mineral, and geographic,
Wealth, in terms both monetary, mineral, and geographic, and in human resources, does, in fact, add up to all the ingredients necessary for great power status.
The United States, from the middle of the Nineteenth Century, had all of the above, including a political and intellectual commitment to assimilating migrants from Europe and internal development ... And did just that over the following 15 decades.
Europe spent vast amounts of resources in the same period in other pursuits, most of which resulted in the deaths of vast numbers of Europeans long before their natural life.
Best,
Wealth, in terms both monetary, mineral, and geographic, and in human resources, does, in fact, add up to all the ingredients necessary for great power status.
The United States, from the middle of the Nineteenth Century, had all of the above, including a political and intellectual commitment to assimilating migrants from Europe and internal development ... And did just that over the following 15 decades.
Europe spent vast amounts of resources in the same period in other pursuits, most of which resulted in the deaths of vast numbers of Europeans long before their natural life.
Best,
Great power is fine and most likely to happen with the US controlling the area mentioned but determined super power status is overstretching for me(with your classical definition of super power)
The Confederacy absolutely had a chance to win the war, but they were definitely underdogs.
Hindsight is also 20-20. Of course we look at the ACW today and think "the south had no shot", but had the Confederacy actually won the war, we'd look at the conflict today and think the same way about the Union's chances.
Hindsight is also 20-20. Of course we look at the ACW today and think "the south had no shot", but had the Confederacy actually won the war, we'd look at the conflict today and think the same way about the Union's chances.
Naval hegemony is not certain in 1860 but it will be a superpower. If everything went right the British Empire might have remained one as well. It inherited European tech which was the best in the world and was larger than any European country outside of Russia and was larger than EUROPEAN Russia. It has more arable land than any other country on the planet, had no rival in its hemisphere even in 1860. In other words it has such advantages that things would have to go really. really wrong for it not to be a superpower by some time in the mid to late 20th century. China does not have the world's largest economy, the US economy is about 70% larger. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
It will be one of two or three superpowers barring catastrophe by the late twentieth. It simply has too many advantages.
It probably had a shot but it was very low. Flipping ten heads in a row is about the best chances I could see. It goes downhill from there. The CSA would have to have a near flawless war to win and that is very, very difficult.
The confederacy's chances were small. Very, VERY small. but I don't really think they were absolutely 0. In history, there are no foregone conclussions. Anything can happen.
Picked the third option. Which, interestingly enough, seems the most agreed one, too.
Picked the third option. Which, interestingly enough, seems the most agreed one, too.
I voted for number 3. Nothing should be considered pre-ordained or inevitable when humans are involved. Did the Conferedacy have much of a chance, no. But all they needed to do was to outlast the Northern will to suppress secession. It is possible in war to overcome superiority in manpower and materials, but that is going to require superior political and military strategic skills, which the Union possessed, not the CSA. The CSA never had general officers at the theater command level with the skills of Grant, Sherman and Farragut. Jackson was a great corps commander but at best the equal of Sheridan. Lee is sadly over-rated, a noble warrior but wedded to the outdated Napoleonic strategies of Jomini and a prisoner of the prejudices of his place and class. Of course it took the Union time to shuck off the general chaff that plagued the AoP early in the war and to find its true military geniuses. POD's can be developed that would deprive the Union of its best leaders and that could promote a slower advance of the Union which could lead to CSA independence from Union war-weariness. But in a way the military leadership was only a side show. As long as the political leadership was in the hands of Lincoln and Davis the CSA was all but doomed (flip heads 50 times in a row). Removing Davis from the scene before he was elected provisional president might help, if the CSA could have found a reasonable replacement, maybe Hunter, he could hardly have been worse (any friend of Braxton Bragg was no friend of the CSA). Bottom line for me, the best case for CSA independence is the removal of A Lincoln from this mortal coil by natural (non-Confederate linked) means, leaving the Union in the hands of Hamlin and Seward. That is not to say they would be incompetent fools, but I believe they would lack the sagacity, patience and iron will of A Lincoln. Best timing for this POD is before A Lincoln leaves Springfield, giving Hamlin and Seward time to possibly botch the opening moves leading to Ft Sumter and/or the lead up to Manassas 1. This would still not be a good chance for the CSA, but it is more than they had OTL.
Thought number 2, maybe a better outcome for the CSA is that Lee accepts command of the Union arnies and ignores the Anaconda Plan in favor of a Napoleonic strategy of attack to force the single climatic battle ASAP. A TL for someone?
Cheers to all.
Thought number 2, maybe a better outcome for the CSA is that Lee accepts command of the Union arnies and ignores the Anaconda Plan in favor of a Napoleonic strategy of attack to force the single climatic battle ASAP. A TL for someone?
Cheers to all.
Anaxagoras
Banned
Sheridan is terribly overrated. He was not a good general. His tenure in command of the Army of the Potomac's cavalry was basically a trail of failure. The perception is that he was successful only stems from the fact that Jeb Stuart was killed in the Battle of Yellow Tavern. The raid towards Richmond accomplished nothing substantial and deprived the army of its cavalry, leaving it blind in the face of Lee's army at Spotsylvania. Later, when Sheridan was sent off to the west to cooperate with Hunter's army in the Shenandoah, he was trounced by Hampton at the Battle of Trevilian Station.
In the Valley, Sheridan had at least 40,000 men against Early's 15,000 (granted, Early's men were possibly the finest infantry on the planet). Yet Early nearly defeated Sheridan at Third Winchester because Sheridan foolishly decided to funnel almost his entire army through a single defile, allowing Early to concentrate the bulk of his force on only a portion of the Union army. His carelessness and overconfidence later allowed Early to surprise the Union army at Cedar Creek, nearly turning the tide of the whole campaign. And after all three of the major Union victories of the campaign - Third Winchester, Fisher's Hill, and Cedar Creek - Sheridan failed to vigorously pursue the beaten enemy when he might have completely destroyed them. With such odds in the Union's favor, a more competent general would have defeated Early more more easily and at less cost than Sheridan did.
Last edited: