Did the South have any chance of victory ?

[Syagrius]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

As I see it, slavery was the main reason for secession -- at least for the original seven states. But the war was fought over the right to secede. I don't suppose many people on either side deliberately risked their lives for or against slavery: it was the question of sovereignty that they were vitally interested in.

Hypothetically, if the southern states had seceded for some reason other than slavery, there would have been war just the same. Lincoln wasn't fond of slavery, but he went to war to 'preserve the Union', not to defeat slavery.

I agree. In fact, Lincoln didnt had the black people in his heart..he emancipated them because it served the Union cause, nothing more.

[RERomine]

Twotribes brings up a very interesting point about the legality of secession. That legality hasn't really be determined. Seems to me it is a Constitutional issue which falls in the perview of the Supreme Court. The problem is the southern states didn't take the procedural route in leaving the Union.

It's hard to figure how they would have ruled if the case had been brought before them. When secession took place in late 1860, there were only eight Supreme Court justices, one having died or retired in May, 1860 and not replaced until January, 1862. Of the remaining justices, four were from the North (ME, PA, NY, OH), three from the South (TN, GA, AL) and the chief justice was from a border state (MD). Of the justices from the South, only J. A. Campbell clearly went South when the war started. J. Catron of Tennessee may have as well. Justice J. M. Wayne of Georia seemed to remain with the Union. Just from looking at where they were from, it isn't impossible to see the decision being split, 4 to 4. It is possible that Justice Wayne may have sided with the Union view and declared secession illegal. This is only speculation on my part. If they were capable of putting emotions aside and decide it based on legal merits, it could have gone either way.

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: Syagrius

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

As I see it, slavery was the main reason for secession -- at least for the original seven states. But the war was fought over the right to secede. I don't suppose many people on either side deliberately risked their lives for or against slavery: it was the question of sovereignty that they were vitally interested in.

Hypothetically, if the southern states had seceded for some reason other than slavery, there would have been war just the same. Lincoln wasn't fond of slavery, but he went to war to 'preserve the Union', not to defeat slavery.

I agree. In fact, Lincoln didnt had the black people in his heart..he emancipated them because it served the Union cause, nothing more.

From the Union perspective, the war was fought because it was believed secession was illegal. One has to dig to the very bottom of the hole to get to the root cause and at the bottle, it was slavery. While it is true the North would have fought to preserve the Union, no matter why the Southern states seceded, the Southern states wouldn't have seceded if they didn't feel slavery was threatened.

Lincoln never claimed to be concerned about anything but preserving the Union:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

Yes, the cotton export ban was a very bad decision (with hindsight). I suppose every game on the subject assumes that decision cancelled in order to give the CSA a better chance and balance the game better.

In fact, now you mention it, I suppose that the cancelling of that decision might give the CSA enough of a boost to balance the game properly and give it a 50% chance of winning.

But I think there was no chance of the South "divorcing itself from slavery" in 1861: it was emotionally, socially, and economically committed to slavery, and slavery seems to have been the main reason for secession, though as usual there were other lesser reasons. If the South had abolished slavery all by itself -- which seems inconceivable -- I doubt that it would have been sufficiently motivated to secede.

I'd agree with this analysis..., but the South missed a MAJOR opportunity to win the war through propaganda. Most Union troops "joined up" to "Preserve the Union"---"Abolition of Slavery" was the prime motivator in less than half (mostly from the North East.). Had the South pushed the idea that the War was really about "freeing the slaves", and that once freed, they would all hurry north to be with the folks who freed them (coincidentaly taking all the low-skill jobs that the Union soldiers had left to enlist because they were willing to work cheaper), things might have been different.

Put into this "light", a couple of defeats and the worry about what several million newly freed Blacks might due to their post-war economic future could very well have lead to major dissertion and morale problems in the Union armies. Even more than a Joseph Johnston, the South needed a Joseph Goebles...

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
Had the South pushed the idea that the War was really about "freeing the slaves", and that once freed, they would all hurry north to be with the folks who freed them (coincidentaly taking all the low-skill jobs that the Union soldiers had left to enlist because they were willing to work cheaper), things might have been different.

Put into this "light", a couple of defeats and the worry about what several million newly freed Blacks might due to their post-war economic future could very well have lead to major dissertion and morale problems in the Union armies. Even more than a Joseph Johnston, the South needed a Joseph Goebles...

An interesting idea, but I suspect that Confederates weren't in the right frame of mind to think of it, or to use it if it had been suggested to them. They initially reckoned that those people from the North would taste Southern steel and that would be that. Talking about the consequences of freeing the slaves would have been to admit the unthinkable possibility of military defeat. I think your idea would have been too far ahead of its time in the 1860s.

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
An interesting idea, but I suspect that Confederates weren't in the right frame of mind to think of it, or to use it if it had been suggested to them. They initially reckoned that those people from the North would taste Southern steel and that would be that. Talking about the consequences of freeing the slaves would have been to admit the unthinkable possibility of military defeat. I think your idea would have been too far ahead of its time in the 1860s.

Cleburne suggested something along the lines of freeing slaves who fought for the Confederacy in 1864 and it wasn't really well received then, either. Just not a path they were willing to go down. 1861 or 1864, it was pretty much admitting defeat. In general, I believe the Confederacy could have won if they had made the correct decisions. It fits the qualification of "any chance of victory".

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
Had the South pushed the idea that the War was really about "freeing the slaves", and that once freed, they would all hurry north to be with the folks who freed them (coincidentaly taking all the low-skill jobs that the Union soldiers had left to enlist because they were willing to work cheaper), things might have been different.

Put into this "light", a couple of defeats and the worry about what several million newly freed Blacks might due to their post-war economic future could very well have lead to major dissertion and morale problems in the Union armies. Even more than a Joseph Johnston, the South needed a Joseph Goebles...

An interesting idea, but I suspect that Confederates weren't in the right frame of mind to think of it, or to use it if it had been suggested to them. They initially reckoned that those people from the North would taste Southern steel and that would be that. Talking about the consequences of freeing the slaves would have been to admit the unthinkable possibility of military defeat. I think your idea would have been too far ahead of its time in the 1860s.

You're undoubtedly correct that such a "propaganda ploy" was beyond the South of the 1860's. I suggested it simply because the discussion was about "COULD the South have won?". I thought this up years ago, and have yet to see as of this day a good explanation as to why it wouldn't work...., IF the South had been of a mind to try it. Thought I'd offer it up for comment on this forum due to the obvious interests of the participants.

[Twotribes]

The South could have "won" by not firing on the North. There is strong reason to believe had the States leaving the Union not forced the Issue, the Northern States would not have easily raised armies and become the aggressors in the war. Lincoln was saved a LOT of headaches by the South firing on the North. Another misconception foisted on the current and future generations is the idea that Lincoln and the North were hot for war and were the instigators of a shooting war.

I do so love the refrain it was fought over States Rights but not Slavery. The sole State right that was viewed as "in" jeapordy WAS Slavery. And on that point the South was mistaken in many regards. The South was more guilty of violating Northern State rights then vis a versu. The South used the Courts and the Federal Government to force the Northern States into enforcing slavery laws in those States for "run aways" and tried to force the right of kidnapping free blacks from Northern States and selling them as slaves in the South on the claim that since they had no papers proving they were free, they were in fact slaves.

The Constitution is clear that the rights, privaleges and safeguards of a citizen in one State can not be violated in another State. yet the South ( slave states) did kidnap any non slave black that ventured into the South with out papers proving they were free men. They even tried to do the same in Northern States.

The Courts and the federal Government officially agreed with and officially attempted to enforce Southern Slave laws in the North, any run away legally was to be returned to his master or the State he escaped from if captured anywhere in the US.

The South didnt like Lincoln but had no "state right" to claim was violated solely by his election to the Presidency. Even if the mythical right to leave the Union exsisted, the South had no cause when they left to do so.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
The South could have "won" by not firing on the North.

Yes, this is a possibility and has been mentioned several times already on this forum, although it's impossible to prove. Firing on Fort Sumter was one of the Confederates' big mistakes.

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
I do so love the refrain it was fought over States Rights but not Slavery. The sole State right that was viewed as "in" jeapordy WAS Slavery.

Yes, but this doesn't alter the fact that (a) most Confederate soldiers weren't even slaveowners and had no motive to fight for slavery; they fought to defend themselves from invasion; and (b) many Union soldiers had little or no interest in freeing the slaves and wouldn't have been willing to fight for that cause; they fought to stop their country from splitting. This is what I understand from what I've read, anyway; none of us were there.

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
The South was more guilty of violating Northern State rights then vis a versu. The South used the Courts and the Federal Government to force the Northern States into enforcing slavery laws in those States for "run aways" and tried to force the right of kidnapping free blacks from Northern States and selling them as slaves in the South on the claim that since they had no papers proving they were free, they were in fact slaves.

The Constitution is clear that the rights, privaleges and safeguards of a citizen in one State can not be violated in another State. yet the South ( slave states) did kidnap any non slave black that ventured into the South with out papers proving they were free men. They even tried to do the same in Northern States.

The Courts and the federal Government officially agreed with and officially attempted to enforce Southern Slave laws in the North, any run away legally was to be returned to his master or the State he escaped from if captured anywhere in the US.

I agree with all this. It all follows fairly logically from the fact that many Southerners saw black people as cattle and not as citizens. This is of course a thoroughly unattractive point of view, but it was their point of view. As for using the federal government to enforce Southern laws in Northern states, this was an abuse and the federal government shouldn't have gone along with it.

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
The South didnt like Lincoln but had no "state right" to claim was violated solely by his election to the Presidency. Even if the mythical right to leave the Union exsisted, the South had no cause when they left to do so.

If you want to resign your membership of a club, you don't need to give a reason. Just wanting to leave should be enough.

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
Had the South pushed the idea that the War was really about "freeing the slaves", and that once freed, they would all hurry north to be with the folks who freed them (coincidentaly taking all the low-skill jobs that the Union soldiers had left to enlist because they were willing to work cheaper), things might have been different.

Put into this "light", a couple of defeats and the worry about what several million newly freed Blacks might due to their post-war economic future could very well have lead to major dissertion and morale problems in the Union armies. Even more than a Joseph Johnston, the South needed a Joseph Goebles...

An interesting idea, but I suspect that Confederates weren't in the right frame of mind to think of it, or to use it if it had been suggested to them. They initially reckoned that those people from the North would taste Southern steel and that would be that. Talking about the consequences of freeing the slaves would have been to admit the unthinkable possibility of military defeat. I think your idea would have been too far ahead of its time in the 1860s.

You're undoubtedly correct that such a "propaganda ploy" was beyond the South of the 1860's. I suggested it simply because the discussion was about "COULD the South have won?". I thought this up years ago, and have yet to see as of this day a good explanation as to why it wouldn't work...., IF the South had been of a mind to try it. Thought I'd offer it up for comment on this forum due to the obvious interests of the participants.

The flip side of that propaganda ploy is also true. Would Southerners really prefer to fight for their right to enslave others or for the more preferable fiction of "states rights"?

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey



An interesting idea, but I suspect that Confederates weren't in the right frame of mind to think of it, or to use it if it had been suggested to them. They initially reckoned that those people from the North would taste Southern steel and that would be that. Talking about the consequences of freeing the slaves would have been to admit the unthinkable possibility of military defeat. I think your idea would have been too far ahead of its time in the 1860s.

You're undoubtedly correct that such a "propaganda ploy" was beyond the South of the 1860's. I suggested it simply because the discussion was about "COULD the South have won?". I thought this up years ago, and have yet to see as of this day a good explanation as to why it wouldn't work...., IF the South had been of a mind to try it. Thought I'd offer it up for comment on this forum due to the obvious interests of the participants.

The flip side of that propaganda ploy is also true. Would Southerners really prefer to fight for their right to enslave others or for the more preferable fiction of "states rights"?

Southerners has a somewhat easier to understand rational..., they were being invaded. It's always easier to raise a force to defend their homes and farms than it is to raise one to go attack someone else.

[Twotribes]

The Union did NOT invade the South, it did however defend its property in the Southern States. This changed NOT when the North attacked the South but rather when the South attacked the Federal Government.

As to the claim one can freely leave a club one joins with no reason, this is not completely true AND what an individual can do does not apply acros the board to what a Government entity can do.

In fact any individual could have simply sold their possessions and left the country, that is a right they possessed. State and local Governments do NOT possess a right to simply leave the United States. I dont know off hand of any country where an entity inside said country can freely chose to leave the Country, forming a new Country. To my knowledge every where this has occurred either a war ensued or some kind of political agreement was reached allowing the split.

One only needs to read the Constitution to find that the Creation of the US as Governed under said Constitution ( ratified by the several States) specifically places the Federal Government over any and all State and Local Governments on numerous issues, the most important being the maintaining of the Union against all Foreign and DOMESTIC enemies. Ensuring all states maintain a certain type of Government and that the Federal Government , NOT the State Governments , have authority over a host of things.

The specific arguement is that the States that chose to rebel and try and leave the Union did so because the Federal Government violated their State rights of Government. This is simply NOT true. The election of Lincoln MAY have lead to changes on how new States were accepted into the Union ( the fear of the South being no new Slave States) but they left the Union before he had attempted to do any such thing. In fact the federal Government had ENFORCED the slave issue on the North, as required by the Constitution as understood at the time. The South had no binding or provable issue that violated their States Rights of Government.

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

I agree with all this. It all follows fairly logically from the fact that many Southerners saw black people as cattle and not as citizens. This is of course a thoroughly unattractive point of view, but it was their point of view. As for using the federal government to enforce Southern laws in Northern states, this was an abuse and the federal government shouldn't have gone along with it.

The South sure had no problem viewing the slaves as three fifths of a person when it came to representation in the the House of Representatives. This gave them disproportionate representation by counting any part of people who had no influence in government what so ever. At the time, women couldn't vote either, but at least they had some prospect of being listened to by people who did.

If you want to resign your membership of a club, you don't need to give a reason. Just wanting to leave should be enough.

Sounds like General George Pickett out of the movie "Gettysburg". The whole timing of secession smacks of being poor losers. Had Breckinridge won the presidental election or possibly Douglass, it is unlikely the deep South would have seceded in 1860-61. I have to believe it isn't strictly defined in the laws, constitutions, etc. of most countries that secession is forbidden, but I also have to believe most governments would react the same way the Union government did in 1861. I often wonder how Canada would react if Quebec ever passes their ordinance of secession.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

The Union did NOT invade the South, it did however defend its property in the Southern States. This changed NOT when the North attacked the South but rather when the South attacked the Federal Government.

I'm sorry. I thought when Lincoln called for volunteers in 1861 the slogan was "On to Richmond!". I must have missed the part about "Let's defend our Property!."

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: RERomine
The whole timing of secession smacks of being poor losers.

I agree that's a good way of putting it. I support the principle of self-determination, which implies the right of any region to secede from any country; but that doesn't mean that I have to be in love with the Confederates. As with all large groups of people, there were surely some fine and lovable Confederates, but as a whole they had some unlovable characteristics, such as their commitment to slavery and their tendency to arrogance.

ORIGINAL: RERomine
I have to believe it isn't strictly defined in the laws, constitutions, etc. of most countries that secession is forbidden, but I also have to believe most governments would react the same way the Union government did in 1861. I often wonder how Canada would react if Quebec ever passes their ordinance of secession.

Virtually all governments in history have taken a dim view of secession from their own countries: it reduces their own power, and it's hard to find a politician who'd agree to that. However, in modern times even politicians seem to be taking a more relaxed attitude to secession as long as it's in some other country. For instance, Serbs are opposed to Kosovan secession, but everyone else seems mildly in favour of it.

I take the view that governments are opposed to secession for their own selfish reasons; as a non-politician, I see no reason why a region that wants to be independent shouldn't be allowed to do it. Why would any non-politician support the idea of governing a people against their will?

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
The Union did NOT invade the South, it did however defend its property in the Southern States. This changed NOT when the North attacked the South but rather when the South attacked the Federal Government.

The shooting started when Confederates attacked Federal troops who had occupied a fort deep in Confederate territory. The attack was unnecessary and unwise, but the military occupation of the fort was unnecessary and provocative -- and was apparently carried out by Major Anderson on his own initiative, in defiance of his orders. If this was truly the cause of the war, it was an unhappy accident resulting from serious misjudgments on both sides.

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
In fact any individual could have simply sold their possessions and left the country, that is a right they possessed.

This is of course true, and it's a useful right when a few individuals are concerned. When millions of people are concerned, it's absurd to suggest that they should all move out, leaving vast areas of the country depopulated. The simpler and cheaper solution is for them to stay put but peaceably elect their own government.

[Twotribes]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

The Union did NOT invade the South, it did however defend its property in the Southern States. This changed NOT when the North attacked the South but rather when the South attacked the Federal Government.

I'm sorry. I thought when Lincoln called for volunteers in 1861 the slogan was "On to Richmond!". I must have missed the part about "Let's defend our Property!."

Humm "On to Richmond" Funny thing is, as i recall Richmond was NOT the Capitol of the Confederacy at the time of the South Carolinia's firing on Fort Sumnter. And I seem to recall volunteers were only called for AFTER the South attempted to sieze federal Forts and fired on and captured Sumnter. Perhaps you would care to explain the discrepancies in your post?

[Twotribes]

The Federal arsenals and Forts were PROPERTY of the US Government. The States, whether they left the Union or stayed , had no right to attack them nor attempt to sieze the arms and munitions in them.

Why would the US agree to abandon its own property when it didnt even agree the States had the right to leave the Union?
It was , as you say, an unfortunate event, but it was one calculated by the South to send a clear message to Lincoln. They succeeded, instead of peacefully brokering a possible split, they started a shooting war.

[spruce]

I think we are going off topic.
 
Off course the South had a chance to win the war - otherwise they wouldn't have started the war. The point is not if the South would have won the war - the point is =
 
would there be a point where the North was not willing to commit its impressive resources to win the war. I think there's always such a point - either based on logic or whatever political sentiment or willingness.
 
And yes - Forge of Freedom seems to answer also ... there's something like the will to fight or nations will ... very important me thinks.[:'(]

[Twotribes]

The South nearly DID get what they wanted, in 1864 the Presidential election was a toss up with Lincoln believeing he couldnt win until a key victory occurred. McClellan ran on the Premise he would make a settlement with the South.

We are actually not off topic though, the South had a chance to win peacefully all along. They did NOT want a peaceful solution. Well the hotheads leading the drive to leave the Union didnt want a peaceful Solution. I am sure the majority of the people in the South would have preffered no break and once the break occurred would have preferred it be settled peacefully.

It was a much different time, people were more closely identified with their State, most people didnt ever leave that State, once the State apperatuse made a major decision the majority fell in line, thus the loyalty to a war predominately caused by the desire to protect Slavery was fought by people that really didnt care about that Issue.

The North had it a bit harder. Lincoln had to sell the people on the idea that the Union was more important then the thousands that were dieing. He couldnt make the claim that the South intended to force anything on the Northern States and except those states invaded by the South during the war he couldnt really appeal to States loyalty to itself. Both could and were claimed by the South, but neither were strickly true until the South started a shooting war.