Did the South have any chance of victory ?

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: spruce
I think we are going off topic.

It tends to happen.

ORIGINAL: spruce
Off course the South had a chance to win the war - otherwise they wouldn't have started the war.

Not true: they started the war because they overestimated their chance of winning. If they'd estimated their chance of winning more accurately (and the horrible cost of it whether they won or lost), I suppose they wouldn't have started it.

Bear in mind that even if the CSA had won its independence, it would have been a wreck of a country. The economy was a disaster area. The government paid for things by printing more money.

ORIGINAL: spruce
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.[:'(]

Yes, I think most of us should be able to agree with this. Certainly I do.

[ezzler]

Not sure the South really knew the chances of winning .
This is common to many to many wars { including the present day!!} that there is an overestimation of own and an underestimation of the enemies abilities.

1 Southerner is worth 10 Northeners.... was proved pretty an empty boast pretty early on , yet was genuinely felt to be true at the time, much as Europeans greatly underestimated the fighting qualities of the Imperial Japanese before Pearl Harbour.

The chances of Germany defeating The USSR or Japan the Commenwealth and the USA are remote indeed.
Yet both thought the enemy inferior and morally weak compared to thier own societies.

The South THOUGHT that they could win but this doesn't mean that they ACTUALLY could win.

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: 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.

Quite true. At no point that I have heard of, did State governments offer to pay for Federal property siezed or remaining under Federal control. Southern states just figured since it was within their boarders, it automatically became their property once they seceded.

South Carolina took they view they could not have forts of a "foriegn government" within their boarders. At no point did South Carolina take any peaceful approach to resolving the problems. Forts abandoned by the Federal government were siezed. Resupply ships to Ft. Sumter were fired upon. Had they broached the topic of purchasing the fort and failed, then the use of force might have been viewed as an acceptable option by the outside world. It still wasn't their only option. The could have tried to just wait Ft. Sumter out. Firing was always an option later. Nothing would be lost by waiting. Sure, Ft. Sumter could have been reinforced, but the defenses around it would have been reinforced as well. More men in the fort required more supplies and at any point, South Carolina could have isolated them. Waiting really wouldn't have hurt.

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: ezz

Not sure the South really knew the chances of winning .
This is common to many to many wars { including the present day!!} that there is an overestimation of own and an underestimation of the enemies abilities.

1 Southerner is worth 10 Northeners.... was proved pretty an empty boast pretty early on , yet was genuinely felt to be true at the time, much as Europeans greatly underestimated the fighting qualities of the Imperial Japanese before Pearl Harbour.

The chances of Germany defeating The USSR or Japan the Commenwealth and the USA are remote indeed.
Yet both thought the enemy inferior and morally weak compared to thier own societies.

The South THOUGHT that they could win but this doesn't mean that they ACTUALLY could win.

Frame of mind and reality doesn't deminish the fact they could win. For the Confederacy, winning is simply defined by continuing to exist as an independant nation. This could have been accomplished on the battlefield, through war weariness in the North or foriegn intervention.

Political decisions in the South pretty much snuffed out all of these options. There should have been someone in charge of all of the Confederate armed forces from the very beginning. This would have allowed a nationwide military strategy, rather than everything being theater level. Jefferson Davis tried to fill this role, but was ineffective. The weak central government made it difficult to ensure the military had everything they needed and when they needed it. The cotton embargo took away the only real international currency the Confederacy had. They passed on the option to buy almost a dozen ships early in the war in exchange for cotton. Generals commanded Confederate armies when they had no skills to do so. Political connections with Jefferson Davis allowed this to continue.

Tactically speaking, the Confederacy won a great many battles. The problem was no real thought was given to the strategic, at least until the Federal armies threatened something. With the single instance when Longstreet's corps was sent to join Bragg for a while. I can't think of any other occasion where units were shifted from one theater to another. For the Confederacy, the war couldn't be won in the West, but it could be won in the East. Had they shifted men to Lee's army to give him the chance to attack at something close to even odds for a change might have made a big difference. By 1864, all of those chances were gone. Grant had a death grip on Lee at this point. Lee won the battles, but he couldn't get away from Grant long enough to go on the offensive. Prior to 1864, I believe they could have won the war on the battlefield if they had ever managed to achieve a regional superiority of units. No effort was made to do this.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: RERomine
At no point that I have heard of, did State governments offer to pay for Federal property seized or remaining under Federal control. Southern states just figured since it was within their borders, it automatically became their property once they seceded.

And is that attitude wrong? Government property is paid for by taxpayers. It wouldn't have been exactly true that federal government properties in the Southern states were paid for by Southern taxpayers, but Southern taxpayers paid their share for federal properties all over the USA. Should they pay again for what they've (more or less) already paid for?

I wonder if there's any historical record of a seceding region making such payments for properties within its borders. I see little justification for it.

ORIGINAL: RERomine
South Carolina took they view they could not have forts of a "foriegn government" within their boarders. At no point did South Carolina take any peaceful approach to resolving the problems. Forts abandoned by the Federal government were siezed. Resupply ships to Ft. Sumter were fired upon. Had they broached the topic of purchasing the fort and failed, then the use of force might have been viewed as an acceptable option by the outside world. It still wasn't their only option. The could have tried to just wait Ft. Sumter out. Firing was always an option later. Nothing would be lost by waiting. Sure, Ft. Sumter could have been reinforced, but the defenses around it would have been reinforced as well. More men in the fort required more supplies and at any point, South Carolina could have isolated them. Waiting really wouldn't have hurt.

I agree with most of this. There was too much belligerence.

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

ORIGINAL: RERomine
At no point that I have heard of, did State governments offer to pay for Federal property seized or remaining under Federal control. Southern states just figured since it was within their borders, it automatically became their property once they seceded.

And is that attitude wrong? Government property is paid for by taxpayers. It wouldn't have been exactly true that federal government properties in the Southern states were paid for by Southern taxpayers, but Southern taxpayers paid their share for federal properties all over the USA. Should they pay again for what they've (more or less) already paid for?

I wonder if there's any historical record of a seceding region making such payments for properties within its borders. I see little justification for it.

I see your point on this and I'm somewhat torn. There are records of the United States making payments to Mexico for territory captured during the war with them, even though they really didn't need to. Helped soothe wounded feelings.

As far as property goes, yes it was paided for by the taxpayers. The question is should they automatically get their taxes refunded if they leave the Union? Your point is that they should. If we go back the membership in a club analogy, any fees you pay might be used for operating costs and building enhancements. Mearly quitting the club doesn't mean you may lay claim to part of the building. If you want part of that property, you would be expected to buy it. Doesn't matter of some of your money went into it building it.

Wouldn't it be worth the attempt to pay for the property if it may avoid a fight? The Southern states had the property, so they weren't going to give it up, but the olive branch would have been better recieved than the sword. If the olive branch is turned away, the sword is always there.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

Northern taxpayers paid part of the cost of forts in Southern states. If their soldiers would no longer have access to those forts, they could ask for repayment of those costs.

However, by the same argument, Southern taxpayers paid part of the cost of forts in Northern states. If their soldiers would no longer have access to those forts, they could equally well ask for repayment of those costs.

It seems simpler for neither side to bother. If an exact assessment had been done, there probably wouldn't have been much net payment due. And it's not obvious who would have had to pay. Northern taxpayers probably paid more; but there were probably more forts in Northern states.

I agree that the CSA was recklessly belligerent and undiplomatic and could well have afforded to leave federal forts alone as a gesture of respect during negotiations. The US government, to its credit, was more careful: Major Anderson's little adventure was unauthorized.

[Twotribes]

Your argueing that by leaving the Union, previous taxes were somehow owed to the States and people trying to leave. Why? I dont agree with the analogy of comparing the act of leaving the Union the same as leaving a club, BUT since you do, be so kind as to address the issue raised already. Are you argueing that if you quit a club, any dues paid prior to departure are yours to be demanded back? That part of the club's property now belongs to you if they dont pay you?

Your arguement fails in every state outside the original 13 colonies anyway. The land the States owned were given to them BY the Federal Government, does that mean that when those states left, the Federal Government could demand either payment for the land or demand it be returned to them? If not, then why can those States demand a return on property for taxes paid prior to their departure? Why can they lay claim to land they dont own and never had control over, without payment or political consideration?

It also fails in the original Colonies. For over 70 years the Federal Government provided for those States within the framework of the Constitution, the land was given to the Federal Government because of previous debts and because of agreements made to the Federal Government to support said Government. In the case of Texas, the Federal Government wrote off debts by having Texas drop claims to lands they said were theirs and to facilitate them joining the Union. Does that mean that those lands now return to Texas and that Texas now owes all that money again? If not, why?

[Jonathan Palfrey]

I'm not arguing that anyone should pay anything: I'm arguing that it would have been too complicated and too contentious to try to work out who owed what to whom, and it would have been much easier to drop the issue and agree to separate without any payments. (It would also have been much cheaper for both sides than fighting a four-year war.)

Everything "owned" by a government (any government) is in fact paid for by taxpayers. It's the taxpayers who rightfully own it, not the government. Southerners were taxpayers, so they were already joint owners, along with Northern taxpayers, of all federal government properties and lands (and not just those that happened to be in Southern states).

[Twotribes]

You have stated that since the South paid taxes they deserved the forts and arsenals. If your position is now that this should have been discussed in a reasonable manner, I suggest your finding fault with the South, as they refused any such attempt. Lincoln did NOT call for volunteers until the South had focefully attacked Fort Sumnter.

The idea of a peaceful settlement, contrary to some posts in this forum, was never the intent of the South.Was a war a forgone fact? Probably. But we will never know because the South forced it on the Union with no attempt at a peaceful settlement. Which directly effects the question... Could the South have won the Civil War.

Why do I continue to bring this up? Because the romantic version foisted on us is that the South wanted a peaceful split and the North was a blood thristy entity lead by Lincoln that forced a shooting war by invading a peaceful South. And of course the ludicrous claim that the South had cause to worry about State Rights BEFORE Lincoln ever took office.

[spruce]

As a European I might seem not subject to prejudice in this debate ...

but in our history books there's clearly stated that North and South had become 2 different nations inside the greater Union ... not based on moral or theoretical differences ... but due to practical, economical and political reasons.

by the way, this game is going to be fun ! [:D]

[Jonathan Palfrey]

I'm not a cheerleader for the Confederacy, and I've said several times that the CSA was too belligerent and undiplomatic up to the start of the war. I've also complimented the US government on being more restrained during the same period.

I think the CSA was right on a couple of points of principle, but in other respects it was often in the wrong. Is that even-handed enough for you?

I don't believe that the CSA owed the USA any significant amount of money for federal properties, as I've already explained. Yes, it could have offered to pay some money anyway, as a gift; the gift would have been cheaper than the war. But the Confederates would have had to be much more diplomatic and realistic than they actually were to think of making such an offer.

[Oldguard]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

There is no listed inherient right in the Constitution that allows a State to leave the Union.

This, too, is semantics. It would be just as accurate to state that the Constitution does not specifically forbid secession. If it's not prohibited that is, in fact "allowing" it.

There was not then and is not now ANY clause or arrangement for member States admitted into said Union, to pick up their ball and go away cause the majority of States disagreed with any specific State on how other States would be admitted into the Union and on how a super majority of States could amend the Constitution.

And the correlary would be that it is also not forbidden. This is the essence of the very issue at the root of the Civil War -- slavery was one of the specific fundamental disagreements (living in Kansas I am a student of the bloodshed that preceded the ACW here and the pro vs. anti-slavery factions), but overlaying the issue of Slave states and Free states was the overmounting issue of whether a state could determine its character free of Federal mandate.

The term that applies to the States leaving the Union is of Course treason, as stipulated in the Constitution. The act of attempting to leave the Union by any and all State or local Governmentsis clearly an act of Treason as defined in the Constitution.

The Constitution never clearly states any such thing. In fact, the Constitutional Congress scrapped the first Articles of Confederation which had actually forbade secession. The Constitution made no mention of perpetual union, as had the Articles, and left the states free to legally secede from the Union.

[Twotribes]

Not true. It is clearly the position that a member can NOT leave the Union without either amending the Constitution OR getting the approval of the majority of States. Otherwise the federal Government has NO power at all.

[Missouri_Rebel]

twotribes, which article is that under? I don't recall that section. Maybe I need to go back through it as I certainly don't remember that part. Mind posting the article and section?

Thanks,
Mo Reb

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
There is no listed inherient right in the Constitution that allows a State to leave the Union.

[/quote]



But I believe there is a sentence in the Constitution which states that "All rights not specifically granted to the Federal Government are reserved to the States." So unless you can provide a specific statement in that document denying the right of succession.., it is a right "reserved to the States."

[Missouri_Rebel]

Yeah, but that is that pesky 10th amendment. Wasn't it Jeff Davis that said he'd rather leave with the constitution than stay without it? 

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
There is no listed inherient right in the Constitution that allows a State to leave the Union.

But I believe there is a sentence in the Constitution which states that "All rights not specifically granted to the Federal Government are reserved to the States." So unless you can provide a specific statement in that document denying the right of succession.., it is a right "reserved to the States."

The legality of secession was never challenged one way or the other. It is possible secession would be in violation of the 10th amendment, but not in ways most people would think about. Prior to secession, there were a number of federal taxes passed and it allowed the federal goverment to collect them. These were mainly trade tariffs. By seceding, the Southern states interferred with that right and the ordinances of secession could be construed as Unconstitutional. A state many not do anything that negates the Federal Government right.

ARTICLE I
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Section 8. Clause 1. The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Overall, the legality question is meaningless because no one, North or South, was interested in going through due process to determine it. Emotions were too high.

[Missouri_Rebel]

Emotions were too high.

As they could be here.

   I think you are reaching too far here. How can the feds collect taxes from a state that considered itself, through it's legistative process, not part of the collectors nation. They would,from the point of secession, have no right to draw resources from the feds and therefore would not offer the funds either.Alas, I am afraid this thread has gone way off topic from it's original intent yet I must admitthat I hate the revisionist label that people have  coined to stiffel(sp?) ones argument. Seems to be just another P.C.way to discredit someone regardless of proven facts, like a lot of labels lately. i.e. anti-ILLEGAL immigration/hater label.
    To me a revisionist is one that makes the stance that the holocaust never happened, even in the face of cold, hard facts.
Please don't mix me in that group.

Mo Reb

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

Emotions were too high.

As they could be here.

  I think you are reaching too far here. How can the feds collect taxes from a state that considered itself, through it's legistative process, not part of the collectors nation. They would,from the point of secession, have no right to draw resources from the feds and therefore would not offer the funds either.Alas, I am afraid this thread has gone way off topic from it's original intent yet I must admitthat I hate the revisionist label that people have  coined to stiffel(sp?) ones argument. Seems to be just another P.C.way to discredit someone regardless of proven facts, like a lot of labels lately. i.e. anti-ILLEGAL immigration/hater label.
   To me a revisionist is one that makes the stance that the holocaust never happened, even in the face of cold, hard facts.
Please don't mix me in that group.

Mo Reb

I don't deny it's a reach. It's also a reach that doesn't really matter. Whether it would have been determined to be legal or not, the South was going to go about their course of action and the North its. I only brought it up because they got Al Capone on a technicality. He failed to pay taxes on his illegal income. Once the war ended, the Federal Government certainly didn't forget those taxes that hadn't been paid during the war.

The Civil War was more of a revolution than anything. Only sectionalism made it different than other revolutions. No different than when the colonies broke away from England. It would be hypocritical to say the South couldn't break away from the Union when the United States was formed the very same way. I doubt any government considers revolution to be legal, either. Merely stating something to be illegal isn't going to stop it from happening.

I will try to bring us back on the thread course. As previously stated, I believe the South had many chances of victory. There are many things we can see today that they may have been unable to see at the time. Hindsight is 20/20, but that doesn't diminish the fact the chances were there.