Did the South have any chance of victory ?

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: Grifman
And maybe the South should have thought of that before revolting. Again, you just can't pin this on the North. Want to blame both, fine - but to try and put most of the blame on the North just isn't historical.

OK, I'll make you happy and blame both sides. The CSA recklessly and stupidly invited war; the USA accepted the invitation.

ORIGINAL: Grifman
North America could have conceivably ended up with dozens of nations, as any time some state didn't like something, they'd just decide to leave. What kind of democracy is it when the losers in an election can just leave?

Sounds great to me. If people don't want to stay in a country, why should they? A country, like a club, should be a voluntary association of people for mutual benefit. If people don't feel they benefit, they should be free to form a new club.

Given the freedom to separate, any nation would split into dozens of nations only if that's what the people wanted. If they tried it and decided they didn't like it, they'd be equally free to join up again.

ORIGINAL: Grifman
If you're going to equate Abraham Lincoln to Hitler and Stalin, no one's going to take you seriously.

That's not what I said. To give Lincoln credit, up to the Fort Sumter incident he seemed to be carefully trying to avoid war. Furthermore, he and his government were of the 19th century and I make some allowance for that.

ORIGINAL: Grifman
It's quite obvious that "consent of the governed" doesn't mean that any one or any state could leave whenever they didn't consent ...

What else could it mean? If a government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, and the governed don't consent any more, then it no longer has any just powers over them.

ORIGINAL: Grifman
Whoa, but Southern unionists didn't give their consent to the separation from the North. Now you're hoisted on your own petard. Don't they have rights? Wasn't it wrong for the South to secede when they didn't give their consent? What about their rights? What about their consent? Hmmm, seems like things are breaking down a bit here for you.

Not really. As far as I'm concerned, it would be OK for Virginia and Tennessee to split. It wasn't OK for the CS politicians, but that was their own hypocrisy, not mine.

ORIGINAL: Grifman
Oh, please, if anyone was trying to "maintain" their power it was the Southern white upper class. They led the movement into war and were those most strongly behind it. I suggest you take your own perscription and apply to the South and it's motives at the same time you try and apply it to the North.

This is fair comment. As you say, both sides were trying to maintain their own powers and their own selfish interests. That's the way people are.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
Why don't we bring this thread to a halt with the admission that the South probably couldn't have "won"..., but it could potentially have held on long enough that the North "lost". Basically the same kind of "victory" that the 13 Colonies had achieved against Great Britian.

I would have agreed to that at the start.

[AU Tiger_MatrixForum]

Or we could rename this thread, "How Many Angels Can Dance on the Head of a Pin?"

[Jonathan Palfrey]

I'll go for 42.

[Oldguard]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Revisionsm is the process by which historians go about rewriting history based on criteria that has little to do with the reality of the history itself.

Sort of like claiming that secession was forbidden by the Constitution?

[Twotribes]

Yup thats JUST like revisionism, sure thing.

[Mike Scholl]

GOD..., Here we go again.....

[andysomers]

I've restrained on this one for quite a while....
 
Did the South have a chance to win the war?
 
This is one of two questions...
 
1)  Did the South have the ability to militarily dominate the North?  The answer to this is no - clearly no.  Northern resources were simply too much.  The only way that this could have even conveiably have happened was if the South conquered Washington immediately following First Manassas.  I would argue that the US would have relocated the captial and resources would have been concentrated to retake DC.  Even so - this is all my speculation.
 
2) This is the more accurate way to ask this question.  Could the South have had its independence recognized by the united States (and England, France, et al)? - in my mind the answer is most clearly yes.  Two things could have happened where the North would have probably lost its will to fight.  European recognition, or the removal of Lincoln (Democratic victory in the Presidential election of 1864, coup d'etat, or assassination). 
 
Someone made the correlation earlier to Vietnam - I think that is right on.  North Vietnam could not have beaten the US militarily, if the US was fully committed to the war.  North Vietnam with the help of the Soviets or Chinese (analagous to European recognition), or by defeating the US will to fight (what historically happened), allowed a much smaller country (in terms of size and resource) to defeat a Goliath.
 
I think the North teetered on the brink of collapse several times.  Lincoln's will and political genius saved it - I would vehemently argue that.
 
Also - to the point that the war was fought, and no outcome was achieved - you are completely misinformed.  The Civil War redefined this country, and the role the federal government played in it.  Up until this time, it was highly in doubt as to which was more powerful, the state or federal government.  This war removed that issue without a doubt and established the federal government of the United States as the supreme governing body of the land.  In short, before the Civil War one would say "the United States are...."  afterwards, one says "the United States is..."
 
AS
 
 

[ezzler]

To bring us all back to more of a gaming level

1} Assuming the game starts from the day AFTER Fort Sumter so war is already a forgone conclusion and seccession has begun

and

2} The slavery issue remains as historically was

3} And both sides decide against paying each other off { an interesting notion but a poor game !! " Here's your cheque Mr Lincoln .. Thanks Mr Davis" }

Does anyone have any suggestions for GOOD or at least alternative strategies that the CSA or the UNION may try to use.

In the old FROM SUMTER TO APPOTOMAX i used to put all efforts into courting English support. This usually meant a couple of big military victories and then digging in to protect the borders. Mixed results but can really pay off if it goes well

The coast ... how to defend the ports or is it too difficult or worth the effort ?

The Union ... forget the naval embargo and concentrate resources on a land campaign.?

And going for the capitols... Does it pay off ? Or tackle the armies ?

[Jonathan Palfrey]

Well, the game isn't out yet, so few of us will have much idea how best to play it.

If you mean how it should be played assuming that it's absolutely realistic in all respects, there are maybe a few things that could be said.

For either side to concentrate on a frontal assault on the other's capital looks to me like a losing strategy, because it will cause a lot of casualties that will sap national will, and allow your opponent to enjoy fighting on the defensive in prepared positions (while perhaps making gains in the west). I reckon the "On to Richmond!" slogan was a mistake -- although Virginia is a good prize if you can take it.

With hindsight, it looks as though the Confederacy should have defended New Orleans better. But then it didn't know where the Union would go, so it would have to consider defending some other coastal cities too, which starts to get expensive.

We'll start to get more ideas when we have the game and we've played it a bit.

[Oldguard]

ORIGINAL: andysomers
Someone made the correlation earlier to Vietnam - I think that is right on.  North Vietnam could not have beaten the US militarily, if the US was fully committed to the war.  North Vietnam with the help of the Soviets or Chinese (analagous to European recognition), or by defeating the US will to fight (what historically happened), allowed a much smaller country (in terms of size and resource) to defeat a Goliath.

I think the North teetered on the brink of collapse several times.  Lincoln's will and political genius saved it - I would vehemently argue that.

Andy, you make a great point in a way -- winning a war is more about national will than it is about military power. North Vietnam did not defeat the U.S. on the battlefield -- ever. They realized this was not something they could ever do and thus their resort to political weapons, propaganda and guerilla tactics in order to undermine national will to fight. We're seeing the same methods being used by Islamic extremists today.

Citizens during the Civil War had never heard of assymetrical warfare, though that's essentially what a few commanders like Morgan and Forrest practiced. The South never really had to win the war militarily -- all they had to do was create doubt in the minds of their enemies as to the worthiness of the struggle and hold out long enough to undo Northern unity.

I submit that a Cannae-like victory in the Seven Days' battles, or later at Gettysburg (both very achievable), might have drastically altered Lincoln's powerbase and seriously undercut Union support for the war. Whether that would have resulted in a Union acceptance of Confederate existence or not is another question, but at no time did it have to include a complete defeat of Yankee arms.

[megalomania2003]

ORIGINAL: Oldguard
I submit that a Cannae-like victory in the Seven Days' battles, or later at Gettysburg (both very achievable)

Disagree on this one. I have read quite a few alternate versions of the battles and they ignore that a Cannae-like victory, except for Appotomax, was never even close in the real world. The Union armies were simply to large and well equipped with rifles for this to happen.

[Queeg]

My two cents: The South could not win militarily so long as the North was willing to prosecute the war to the end. While the South might have been able to win a temporary political victory under a variety of plausible circumstances, I highly doubt that any such political resolution would have been permanent. Two nations, with similar imperial ambitions, could not have coexisted on the same continent for long. In fact, once the South faced up to the fact that slavery was no longer a viable institution, a peaceful reunion might even have been possible.

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: Queeg

My two cents: The South could not win militarily so long as the North was willing to prosecute the war to the end. While the South might have been able to win a temporary political victory under a variety of plausible circumstances, I highly doubt that any such political resolution would have been permanent. Two nations, with similar imperial ambitions, could not have coexisted on the same continent for long. In fact, once the South faced up to the fact that slavery was no longer a viable institution, a peaceful reunion might even have been possible.

If, by chance, McClellan had won the election in 1864 and peace ensued (McClellan claimed he would have still fought to the end if he had won considering the situation at the time of the election), slavery was still pretty much dead. The only way slavery would have been able to continue in the South would have been at the point of a bayonnet.

[andysomers]

The South could not win militarily so long as the North was willing to prosecute the war to the end.

That sums it up. Well put.

I'd say that a "Cannae-type" victory was possible, but highly unlikely. AS Johnston nearly did it at Shiloh, and probably would have if Buell was a day later (or Johnston had launched the attack a day earlier as planned). Where Lee really had a chance was Antiteam - that victory would have nearly ensured English and French recognition.

Interesting is the "Gettysburg" trilogy by Newt Gingrich which explores a CS Cannae-type victory at Gettysburg. Very much worth the read! All of you would enjoy this series!

AS

[Twotribes]

An example of why the States could not leave the union in the Constitution would be article VI.

I have never figured out how to paste on this board so I suggest you go read said article.

[Twotribes]

Section 10 of article I would also apply.

[Twotribes]

Article III defines treason. And of course it defines the power of the Judiciary which indicates no State has the power to leave the Union.

[Twotribes]

In summary, just about every Article of the Constitution implies that one can NOT leave the Union once one has joined it, without first changing the Document or getting the permission of the Federal Government.

[Missouri_Rebel]

to paste things on this forum, click post reply above posting area. It will then open another posting window where you can post as normal and paste things into.