who should have won the american civil war

[GrauGeist]

The South had a number of opportunities to at least draw up an armistice with the Union.

The battle of Gettysburg was one example. It was a battle that the South should have won.

To start off with, Gen. Lee had ordered his units NOT to engage the Union forces at Gettysburg until he was on the scene and had made an assesment. A number of his units were still afield, most importantly J.E.B. Stuart's cavalry forces.

Gen. Lee's mission up to that point was to drive a wedge into the Union forces and head as far north as possible. The Confederate hopes were that a second invasion of the north would be enough to force the Union to the table for an armistice.

Also up to the battle of Gettysburg, the Union had been suffering setbacks both militarily and politically. The Union civilians were becoming disenchanted with the war dragging on and the Southern forces had been having a heyday north of the Mason-Dixon line, which in turn scared the northern citizens.

Also late in the war, General Early marched on Washington, casting off a small force of Union troops at Monocacy. Early didn't know that Washington was defended by clerks, quartermasters and unassigned officers. His troops were also fatigued from the previous battle and long march. Even still, had he followed through with an attack, the possability of a victory was good.

As far as the Emancipation Proclimation goes, Lincoln had drafted it some time before he issued it, but was waiting for a decisive Union victory to issue it in the hopes of swelling public support (as well as demoralizing the southern public). The "victory" came at Antietam, though it wasn't a "great victory" that Lincoln had hoped for.

The thing I always found interesting about the Civil War, were the military firsts, such as the first railway mortars artillery used in combat, first ironclads to see combat, submarines deployed and saw the transition of smoothbore to rifled weapons.

 

[Colin1]

The thing I always found interesting about the Civil War, were the military firsts, such as the first railway mortars artillery used in combat, first ironclads to see combat, submarines deployed and saw the transition of smoothbore to rifled weapons.

War is the mother of invention...

 

[GrauGeist]

War is the mother of invention...

Indeed it is...

The Civil War held the interest of a number of world powers, besides the British and French because it was casting off many of the traditional Napoleonic tactics which was the culmination of centuries of warfare.

The next big war to be fought that had all of the elements seen in the Civil War would be WWI.

 

[Corsair82pilot]

The next big war to be fought that had all of the elements seen in the Civil War would be WWI.

Which air force's tactics were most utilized in WWI? The North's or the South's?

 

[GrauGeist]

Which air force's tactics were most utilized in WWI? The North's or the South's?

LOL...the North's observation balloon tactics were superior to the South's!

Though the South used the "extra tent lantern" trick at night to it's fullest, fooling the Northern balloonists into thinking there were more enemy troops in camp than really were...

 

[syscom3]

Regardless of whether Lee was going to fight at Gettysburg, Grant had won at Vicksburg and that put the south at an extreme disadvantage.

Once the Union armies solidified their holds on Tennessee, the handwriting was on the wall. No matter what the South did on one theater, it was at a severe disadvantage in the others.

 

[parsifal]

I enjoy the ACW as a gamer, but I confess my knowledge is limited. I do have a few references, including "The Civil War" Shelby FooteBodley head, 1991, and "The history Of the American Civil War 1861-1865" Philip Katcher, Octapus Books, 2002

Having read these and other books, it strike me that the best opportunity for the South to strike a strategically decisive blow occurred early in the war, after First Bull Run. Katchers book says "Finally, about 4.00pm, the confederates launched an attack on McDowells right flank, Slowly at first, the federals began to retire. a stray Confederate shell destroyed a wagon on the bridge over the run, and many volunteers began to panic. While the Regular Army Brigade withdrew in good order, volunteers began throwing away their arms and equipment. Their retreat di not stop until they had reached the outskirts of Washington itself. . Many Civilians, including the New York Congressman who had come to witnes the great vistory became Confederate prisoners.

Jefferson Davis, unwilling to remain in Richmend arrived in the hour of victory. He was begged to alow an advance to Washington, but he refused"......

One wonders if the order to advance had been given, whether in fact the disorganized Confederate Brigades could have taken the city, and if so, whether this would have had an effect on the Union to the point of seeking terms for an armistice.

In "A House Divided" and "War Between the States" the designers think so. A capture of Washington in that boardgame forces the Union to srart looking for peace terms. It is not a surety, but the Union is at risk of surrendering if the city falls.

 

[GrauGeist]

Very good point, Parsifal, and there are many cases where a decision like Pres. Davis made had a direct influence on the outcome of the war.

One of the weaknesses, if you can call it that, of the Confederacy, was that they were steeped in Victorian Chivalry. President Davis may have been afraid that a direct attack on Washington might have created an "ugly scene" and preferred to force the Union to the table by other means, but that's just speculation on my behalf.

 

[renrich]

Mister Turtledove has already given his verdict on the War of Northern Aggression. In "Guns of the South" the South won the war after being supplied with AK47s and field rations by way of a time machine.

 

[Flyboy2]

One of the weaknesses, if you can call it that, of the Confederacy, was that they were steeped in Victorian Chivalry. President Davis may have been afraid that a direct attack on Washington might have created an "ugly scene" and preferred to force the Union to the table by other means, but that's just speculation on my behalf

I'm inclined to agree. Studying the Civil War, one of the main points for the South that the North was wrong was there lack of "chivalry". Many Southern newspapers slandered the North and acted as though they were barbarians. If Davis had directly attacked Washington I believe the war would have ended very quickly

 

[Vassili Zaitzev]

Mister Turtledove has already given his verdict on the War of Northern Aggression. In "Guns of the South" the South won the war after being supplied with AK47s and field rations by way of a time machine.

Yeah, I'd rather go with Newt Gengrich's version, even though the South lost in the end.

 

[renrich]

Gingrich's version was more PC but I thought Turtledove's was more entertaining and inventive. Gingrich's alternative efforts on Pearl Harbor I have thought were very poorly done also.

 

[Colin1]

... I thought Turtledove's was more entertaining and inventive

I only did Turtledove's World War; Earth vs The Race [ie space-lizards] and what an anti-climax the final book was - a real let-down.

Were those alternate US Civil War books any good?

 

[Vassili Zaitzev]

I only did Turtledove's World War; Earth vs The Race [ie space-lizards] and what an anti-climax the final book was - a real let-down.

Were those alternate US Civil War books any good?

I enjoyed them, I read all three books in one week. Haven't read Turtledove's work on the Civil War, but Gengrich's books sounded more believeable.

 

[Clay_Allison]

the war was stupid on both sides and should never have happened.

 

[parsifal]

the war was stupid on both sides and should never have happened.

I can agree that it was stupid, or at least led to "solutions", if you could call them that even today have affected in a bad way the development of American society.

But, given the differences that existed between North and South, prior to the war, I can hardly see anything but a war detemining the issue. The war was supposedly over States Rights, and the emancipation issue (which came later really). But I think in reality the war was fought over the future development of American society.....I think the South wanted an essentially agrarian class based society, whilst the North was much more broad based in its democratic principals, and sought to achieve that by relatively tight central control of government.

It wasnt that the South was less democratic, rather that the North needed more centrised control given its higher level of urbanisation, and industrialization. As societies urbanize, they generally liberalize as well

 

[Clay_Allison]

I can agree that it was stupid, or at least led to "solutions", if you could call them that even today have affected in a bad way the development of American society.

But, given the differences that existed between North and South, prior to the war, I can hardly see anything but a war detemining the issue. The war was supposedly over States Rights, and the emancipation issue (which came later really). But I think in reality the war was fought over the future development of American society.....I think the South wanted an essentially agrarian class based society, whilst the North was much more broad based in its democratic principals, and sought to achieve that by relatively tight central control of government.

It wasnt that the South was less democratic, rather that the North needed more centrised control given its higher level of urbanisation, and industrialization. As societies urbanize, they generally liberalize as well

It would all have happened without war when in 20 years the North had all the money. The South had all of the money in the 1860s, Tobacco and Cotton were tremendous cash crops and they were filthy rich off of them.

If the issue had been dragged out a little longer, it would have become clear that agrarian societies would be poor by the late 19th centuries and the south would have had to urbanize.

Slavery was dealt with sans warfare throughout Europe and the South would have had to bow to pressure and grandfather it out eventually. It could have been done without a war.

 

[Colin1]

I enjoyed them, I read all three books in one week

There's more than three books, I seem to remember there's about six; avoid the last one

 

[BombTaxi]

Britain, at least, resorted to violence to crush slavery - the Royal Navy spent some decades eradicating the last enclaves of illegal slavery around the Empire. Granted, there was no violent disagreement over the principle of ending slavery, but we still had to fight to make it a reality.

As I have said, my reading on this topic is limited to literally a handful of books, but McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom certainly conveys an impression that war was all but inevitable due to the polarization of opinion between the pro-slavery and States Rights South and the pro-emancipation and federal government North. I know there's a whole bunch of oversimplifications in there, but that was the impression i got from my reading 8)

On the subject of Civil War reading, anybody know of any good naval studies of the War? I'm a bit of a naval history nut and that era is woefully absent from my library

Cheers

BT

 

[Vassili Zaitzev]

There's more than three books, I seem to remember there's about six; avoid the last one

Huh, six! Weird, maybe I missed those.