Did the Confederate States Really Have a Chance?

[deejay45]

They had a chance, but it wasn't in a small time frame and they would have had to pull off a lot of tricky political and military victories. The amount they would have had to do and the amount that the Union would have had to screwed up made it less and less likely that it would have happened.

Every lost battle killed moral and caused desertion of their already limited forces.
Though they had some brilliant generals, they had some terrible ones, and a man in charge that meddled with strategy to no gain.

Britain and France both had issues with slavery, and they might have assisted for other reasons, or just to help achieve their goals in an oblique fashion. They wouldn't have unless it looked as though the Confederates were going to win mostly on their own and just needed minor support; IE offer of mediation, breaking of the blockade, raids on undefended areas, etc....

Even then the chances of them surviving for more than a few decades are unlikely.

 

[Tank Cdr]

Once the war begins, I believe one of the CSAs best chances was at Glendale during the Peninsula Campaign. Had Stonewall Jackson been at his best at White Oak Swamp, it is possible that the Army of the Potomac could have suffered a major defeat, General McClellan would have been totally discredited as a military commander, and the butterflies really start flapping then.

 

[Fiver]

The fact that the CSA did as well as it did was due to their superior officer corps and a lot of luck.

The CSA did as well as it did because period military technology strongly favored the defense, they mobilized a much higher portion of their population, and they were about the size of modern Spain, France, Italy, German, and Poland combined. It was not due the the CSA having a superior officer, CSA generalship was usually inferior.

Meade is generally considered a second string Union general - he beat Lee, the best the Confederacy. Burnside, Butler, Hooker, Pleasanton, Pope, and Sigel are usually considered among the worst generals of the war, yet outside of Virginia they usually beat their Confederate opponents.

 

[Fiver]

Once the war begins, I believe one of the CSAs best chances was at Glendale during the Peninsula Campaign. Had Stonewall Jackson been at his best at White Oak Swamp, it is possible that the Army of the Potomac could have suffered a major defeat, General McClellan would have been totally discredited as a military commander, and the butterflies really start flapping then.

Yes, but removing McClellan from command earlier probably increases Union chances of success.

 

[hairysamarian]

The CSA could only get away if the Union let them. Something which is, IMHO, possible.

This. With its advantages in resources, manpower, technology and economy, the Union only needs to remain fighting. As long as the Union declines to quit, the Confederacy is facing inevitability.

In short, a political solution was the CSA's only prayer, and that scenario gives new meaning to the word "improbable."

 

[Tank Cdr]

Yes, but removing McClellan from command earlier probably increases Union chances of success.

I am not too sure about that. With all of his battlefield shortcomings, he was an excellent administrator and he built the Army of the Potomac into a formidable, well trained, well equipped force. He was also well loved by his soldiers. Had he been able to use the army with a similar level of tactical skill, he may well have won the war by 1863. I have to ask then, if he was fired in disgrace after a disasterous Peninsula Campaign, who gets command and will they have the skill to rebuild the Army into what it was, and restore the shattered morale of the men?

 

[Kaptin Kurk]

Yeah, but isn't even that all overblown. I've heard it said on her quite a number of times that the pro-Union elements in Britain would not allow the British nation to declare war for the Confederacy.

Yeah, the amount of Support the Confederacy had in England, while significant, wasn't likely to enough to swing the Empire into their favor, regardless of conditions on the ground. Yes, England offered to mediate, but unless the Union is stupid enough to go to war with England over the Trent affair, they're not going to do anything.

One thing that people forget, is that England had already made the assessment that no matter how their involvement in the war aided the Confederacy on England herself, there was nothing she could do to stop the Union from taking Canada in the event of the outbreak of hostilities, and she did not want that. Moreover, she wasn't primarily focused on the Americans as being a strategic threat. She was not interested in a war that would free up her European rivals to make mischeif.

 

[Elfwine]

I am not too sure about that. With all of his battlefield shortcomings, he was an excellent administrator and he built the Army of the Potomac into a formidable, well trained, well equipped force. He was also well loved by his soldiers. Had he been able to use the army with a similar level of tactical skill, he may well have won the war by 1863. I have to ask then, if he was fired in disgrace after a disasterous Peninsula Campaign, who gets command and will they have the skill to rebuild the Army into what it was, and restore the shattered morale of the men?

The Army of the Potomac was made of good stuff. It'll survive losing Little Mac.

 

[Robert]

Political Victory

The CSA could not win a long war. No matter how bad the Union Generals were, the USA would always be able to replace it's losses and equip new unions. The South could not.

The CSA could make the North believe that the war could not be won through a series of military victories. Should the CSA armies in Kentucky break through to Ohio, there were plenty of Democrats who would use the invasion to urge peace and an acceptance of the existence of the CSA.

While England would prefer not to align itself with a Confederacy that had the institution of slavery, it did recognize as early as 1860 that a United USA would eventually overtake the British Empire in all areas. Should the CSA seem to be winning the war then the "Realists", like those who urge Chamberlain to appease Hitler at Munich, would begin to aid the Confederacy.

 

[Alternatehistoryguy47]

I generally agree that the CS winning through military means is kind of a long shot. If you're going to go for a CS victory TL, I would reccomend making it a political victory. From what I understand, the pieces were there and just had to be put together.

 

[Strategos]

Yeah, the amount of Support the Confederacy had in England, while significant, wasn't likely to enough to swing the Empire into their favor, regardless of conditions on the ground. Yes, England offered to mediate, but unless the Union is stupid enough to go to war with England over the Trent affair, they're not going to do anything.

One thing that people forget, is that England had already made the assessment that no matter how their involvement in the war aided the Confederacy on England herself, there was nothing she could do to stop the Union from taking Canada in the event of the outbreak of hostilities, and she did not want that. Moreover, she wasn't primarily focused on the Americans as being a strategic threat. She was not interested in a war that would free up her European rivals to make mischeif.

Yeah...but wasnt America still reliant upon imports for gunpowder during this time? If not then the situation would have been more lopsided than in WWI. For several reasons.


One of which that I keep thinking of are the repeating carbines. But the downside is that it could easily stunt America's Industrial growth thanks to some lost investments down the road.


Hmmm....I dont think Turtledove really did it justice.

 

[othyrsyde]

My opinion, only through early political exhaustion on the Union's part would the CSA have a shot. Winning independence solely on a military victory is beyond their capabilities. They could only drum up enough men to avoid attrition if they mass enlisted black soldiers, which was considered far too late in OTL's war effort.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

The CSA could only get away if the Union let them. Something which is, IMHO, possible.

This. With its advantages in resources, manpower, technology and economy, the Union only needs to remain fighting. As long as the Union declines to quit, the Confederacy is facing inevitability.

In short, a political solution was the CSA's only prayer, and that scenario gives new meaning to the word "improbable."

The CSA could not win a long war. No matter how bad the Union Generals were, the USA would always be able to replace it's losses and equip new unions. The South could not.

The CSA could make the North believe that the war could not be won through a series of military victories. Should the CSA armies in Kentucky break through to Ohio, there were plenty of Democrats who would use the invasion to urge peace and an acceptance of the existence of the CSA.

While England would prefer not to align itself with a Confederacy that had the institution of slavery, it did recognize as early as 1860 that a United USA would eventually overtake the British Empire in all areas. Should the CSA seem to be winning the war then the "Realists", like those who urge Chamberlain to appease Hitler at Munich, would begin to aid the Confederacy.

I generally agree that the CS winning through military means is kind of a long shot. If you're going to go for a CS victory TL, I would reccomend making it a political victory. From what I understand, the pieces were there and just had to be put together.

My opinion, only through early political exhaustion on the Union's part would the CSA have a shot. Winning independence solely on a military victory is beyond their capabilities. They could only drum up enough men to avoid attrition if they mass enlisted black soldiers, which was considered far too late in OTL's war effort.

Once the North is committed to fighting (which may mean once Lincoln is elected), the South has lost.

The only way they can win is politically. If the cost to the North is too high, even an anti-Slavery president might let them go. If they can make the cost high enough in the first year of the war, maybe the North will give up. If the sentiment "let the wayward sisters go" prevails, they might secede and succeed peacefully.

But once the North is committed to battle, they WILL win, eventually, as long as they stay that way. So the only possibility for the CSA is a political victory.

 

[Elfwine]

Once the North is committed to fighting (which may mean once Lincoln is elected), the South has lost.

The only way they can win is politically. If the cost to the North is too high, even an anti-Slavery president might let them go. If they can make the cost high enough in the first year of the war, maybe the North will give up. If the sentiment "let the wayward sisters go" prevails, they might secede and succeed peacefully.

But once the North is committed to battle, they WILL win, eventually, as long as they stay that way. So the only possibility for the CSA is a political victory.

But the only possibility of achieving that kind of victory rests in Confederate arms.

And once it's attacked the USA, "let the erring sisters go" is not going to be popular.

 

[Anaxagoras]

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.

 

[Ariosto]

The only way I can imagine it is if Lee's Invasion of the North in 1862 is successful, to the point of capturing Philadelphia (Washington as others have claimed is not possible), resulting in Copperheads taking over the House of Representatives in the Fall elections. Come January, they'll force peace by withholding funds for the military beyond operations outside of Union territory, and will have tied Lincoln's hands.
​

 

[Elfwine]

Not sure the Copperheads would be that broadly accepted, however.

 

[Ariosto]

Not sure the Copperheads would be that broadly accepted, however.

Sorry, I often get them confused as the general term for all Peace Democrats of that era, rather than being the fringe. However, I see the Democrats managing to win the House, even without the support of the Pro-War Democrats (the Unionists as they called themselves).
​

 

[Blue Max]

As I've learned and continue to learn more and more about the Confederacy and the Civil War, it always comes off to me that the Confederacy never really was going to succeed, and all the Civil war was was a rebellion which was massive and had it's epic place in time, but was not one that was going to succeed for the rebels. If that's true, how we got to this place where the CSA is viewed as a serious prospect, I'm not sure; maybe it has to do with when the South returned to the Union, their thought of themselves as legitimate and with a chance came with them. Even if the CSA did manage to secede, it seems like it'd be only from the Union letting them leave without fighting or any more fighting, and it seems like the CSA would rather quickly break down and collapse, and its components and states would rejoin the Union or be absorbed up by the Union piece by piece.

So did the Confederacy really have a chance, or was it always a hopeless effort? If it was always just a major but unwinnable rebellion, then I dare say that is a major part of evaluating alternate history scenarios given how much the CSA figures into alternate history.

The Union had a few factors that cut heavily in their favor:

1) Time favored the Union; if the South had opted to jump behind South Carolina's Nullification of the Tariff or even instead of the compromise of 1850, the Union wouldn't be overwhelmingly powerful relative to the South.
2) When the South opted to secede, it didn't draw in the Border States (Kentucky, Missouri or Maryland) with slavery. This was a close run thing, deeply tied to the third point.
3) 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.

With a PoD of 1861, the Confederacy is in trouble.
With a PoD of 1848, they've got major odds of victory.

We can have the South win the Civil War. It's just not our civil war.

 

[Elfwine]

I doubt the Compromise of 1850 would see the same situation in terms of who left as 1860 did.

Aristio: Same issue. I don't think the Union will to fight is so weak that it would collapse in 1862 from anything within the capacity of Confederate armies to achieve.,

Support of the Republican party, maybe, the Union war effort, no.