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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
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?
Lincoln probably could’ve done a bit better, he could’ve maybe sacked McClellan earlier, but he is rightfully considered a great wartime leader. There were also political constraints; he couldn’t start off hard war/total war immediately without destabilizing the north and possibly scaring the hoes/border states. There isn’t much more he could’ve done better, and a lot he could’ve done worse.
If John C Fremont was president, you probably would’ve had a souther victory through sheer extremism and heavy handedness and arrogance. I think a replacement level northern republican leader would’ve won. They likely would’ve gotten a worse deal though. Maybe a Brazil style gradual emancipation and/or unchallenged Black Codes in the South.
The Southern case is interesting, though. The North materially can beat them; the only way the South gets independence is if the North decides the juice isn’t worth the squeeze. If they can keep the war reasonably competitive by November of 1864 such that there is years more combat in front of the north, I think they got a shot at a very desfavorable for them peace. It would involve things like the union controlling the Mississippi River and key Southern forts, but they would still get legal independence.
Of course with the cotton crash of the 1870s, there goes their economy. Welp. They are probably reabsorbed by the 1880s, with most Southerners considering it a terrible failure.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link