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?
That's pretty much the opposite to the opinion I've come to. In my view, the South bet a slightly better prepared soldiery (in 1860) and wish-and-a-prayer magic-thinking diplomacy against.........everything else. Confederate diplomats made a mess of things, their greatest triumph was getting arrested off a British boat, thereby creating an incident. Britain was heavily anti-slavery and had already turned the Royal Navy against the slave trade. They weren't going to finance a pack of slavers, and in fact might have invaded/blockaded if the Union failed to defeat the Confederacy. Nobody else in Europe was going to piss off the Royal Navy for Jeff Davis.
Lincoln meddled as much as Davis did, but he could afford to fuck up several times, and Davis couldn't. Could a perfect storm of events and unstinting genius on the part of 100% of the confederate officials and generals have hypothetically given them a result that could be called victory? Yes. Was it ever likely? Not even for a nanosecond. The confederacy lost the minute they seceded. It just took the Union a bit of fumbling and a quarter million casualties to make it happen.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link