site banner

Small-Scale Question Sunday for September 20, 2026

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

1
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Let's say you're redoing the Civil War and you get to play one of two characters: Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis.

Would it actually be easy to win the war playing as Jefferson Davis?

Obviously, the South would never have been able to conquer the North. The North had immense economic, technological, naval, and manpower advantages. But they didn't need to. They just need to impose enough of a cost on the North that the North would come to a settlement. This doesn't appear that far-fetched. The re-election of Abraham Lincoln was no sure thing in 1864. Had the war not turned decisively in favor of the Union, its possible that McClellan could have won. In the end, he still captured 45% of the votes and won three states (NJ, DE, KY). If McClellan prosecuted the war as President like he did as a General, its likely the South could have held out for a long time. Situations like the starvation of Union prisoners in Andersonville, and the sheer awfulness of the conflict would have likely have proven intolerable without a sure path to victory.

So what could the South have done?

Fabian tactics. They should have simply refused to give battle whenever possible, and harassed Union communications. Johnston did just that as he retreated in the face of Sherman's army. But then he was replaced by the Confederate government because they preferred someone who wanted to fight. Then Sherman took Atlanta.

Lee's incursion into Pennsylvania was a fatal mistake that did more to weaken the Confederate cause than anything. He may have been a good tactician but this strategic blunder is unforgivable.

But the real weak point here is Jefferson Davis. He often involved himself in military decisions and wanted commanders who took an aggressive posture. While appropriate for a stronger force, this is entirely inappropriate for a weaker one. Confederate doctrine should have been preservation of precious manpower, avoiding giving battle, never fighting when not intrenched etc... That last part is also key since the Civil War showed some signs of a proto-WWI type environment.

In any case, in hindsight, the war seems eminently winnable for the South. Which character would you play: Lincoln or Davis?

Am I allowed to abolish slavery as the CSA?

You're allowed to play as Jefferson Davis which means exercising a lot of dictatorial powers, but not unlimited power. You could try to abolish slavery. But if you did, you'd probably get deposed or killed which would end the game in a loss.

My idea would be to avoid the Civil War altogether by transforming slavery into technically not-slavery: emanicpate the slaves, but make them owe enough money to the former masters that it would take them 25 years of effectively zero disposable income to repay it. Let Northern abolitionists purchase this debt if they want to prove their virtue.

The civil war was fought over the political power of the planter class, which expected a veto over the republic's policies before the war. 'Slavery' is a reasonable enough term for that, but that kind of emancipation wouldn't address the real cause.

This would almost certainly not have avoided the war, as Lincoln was determined to keep the nation together. It might have taken the wind out of the sails of some of the Radical Republicans and made the CSA more popular in Europe, but Lincoln had a plenty good casus belli already.

Oh, I meant avoiding the war by avoiding the secession.

Ah gotcha.