Could the South have won the Civil War?

[BillB]

Could the South have won?
I believe so.
Had Lee not blundered and lost at Gettysburg, he could have very possibly gone on to take Washington D.C. and caused the North to sue for peace.

What if the South had won?
What would the world be like today?

[GFB]

Don't know what the world would be like now, but if the south had taken Washington, I suppose they'd have said.."Now don't bother us any more!!!"

[jellowrestling]

I don't think the war was lost at Gettysburg. I think it was lost at Chancellorsville, when Stonewall Jackson was mistakenly fired upon and killed when returning, victorious, to the Rebel camp. Without Jackson, Lee did not have the one person he could absolutely count on to not only carry out Lee's strategy, but to make command decisions in the field. Gettysburg was lost because Lee's generals delayed carrying out his orders, giving the bluecoats time to solidify and reinforce their positions. If his generals had acted upon Lee's orders, the major battle never would have happened; the North would have withdrawn from an indefensible position, with the South in command of the high ground.

[grouchy]

I don't think the war was lost at Gettysburg. I think it was lost at Chancellorsville, when Stonewall Jackson was mistakenly fired upon and killed when returning, victorious, to the Rebel camp. Without Jackson, Lee did not have the one person he could absolutely count on to not only carry out Lee's strategy, but to make command decisions in the field. Gettysburg was lost because Lee's generals delayed carrying out his orders, giving the bluecoats time to solidify and reinforce their positions. If his generals had acted upon Lee's orders, the major battle never would have happened; the North would have withdrawn from an indefensible position, with the South in command of the high ground.

Yes. Well said.

[tx3653]

This is kind of like playing fantasy football with American history.

[grouchy]

This is kind of like playing fantasy football with American history.

Kinda fun.

[planosteve]

I kind of doubt if the South could have won. But, if Lincoln had been assasinated during the war, it might have changed the momentum and the South might have prevailed.

[BillB]

I kind of doubt if the South could have won. But, if Lincoln had been assasinated during the war, it might have changed the momentum and the South might have prevailed.

The South could not have won by totally defeating the enemy. The North had the manpower and materials that the South could never have matched.
The South had to make the war too costly and convince the North that the war was not worth pursuing.
Getting rid of Lincoln would probably have accomplished that. Seizing DC would have probably done that.

[millergrovesue]

All I can say is thank God the south did not win the war.

[Red Oak]

Maybe we will win the next one, that is the best we can hope for.

Better preparation and planning at the First Manasas, could have led to the capture of DC and the trial of Lincoln, that would have been the best chance in my opinion.

Also if the War had of begun a few years earlier, the South would have had a better chance, but as I see it the South did not want to subjugate the North, the just wanted to be left alone.

[BillB]

All I can say is thank God the south did not win the war.

It's hard to say what would have happened had the South won.
Slavery would not have lasted in a Confederate nation.
It is unsuitable and uneconomical for an industrial economy. The South would have been a pariah on the world stage. My guess is that slavery would have been abolished by 1900, or earlier.

Had slavery been allowed to wither away in a natural progression, race relations may have been much better that they were and are now.

Had we lost the American Revolution and remained a British possession, we would people have people saying now "Thank God George Washington lost". That's human nature. We tend to like what we have.

[planosteve]

All I can say is thank God the south did not win the war.

Why is that? The South wasn't fighting to take over the country. They just wanted to leave.

[BillB]

All I can say is thank God the south did not win the war.

Why is that? The South wasn't fighting to take over the country. They just wanted to leave.

Correct!!

[Red Oak]

As long as we are wishing about something in the past, I wish Europeans had never adopted the practice of chattel slavery from the Africans.

[GRANDPA]

If so, could The South have remained a viable nation after the war & after ending slavery? Without the war & slavery in common, why should any of the seceded states remain together? Many in the south despised Davis & the Richmond government as much as Lincoln & Washington DC. With the precedent established, what if a state wanted to rejoin the Union? Would Richmond fight to keep it in? What about the strong Unionist areas within the states. West Virginia comes to mind there, but also Missouri, eastern Tennessee, western North Carolina. Every southern state but South Carolina (of course) had entire regiments fighting alongside the Union army. 1st Alabama (US) marched with Sherman thru Georgia. I have doubts the CSA would have lasted 10 years. We somehow barely managed to keep together for only 7 years under the Articles of Confederation.

[Red Oak]

Texas could go it alone, and still could. Kansas not so much