Could the Confederacy have won the U.S. Civil War?

Was the manpower and resources of the North so great that the Confederate states going to war exhibited criminal folly and blind arrogance?

Or did Southern politicians and generals make more mistakes than their Northern counterparts?

Was the the South's championing of slavery so unjust that it weakened the support of segments of its population for Secession itself?

Is there some other explanation?

Industrialization.

How would the Confederacy have known they'd won the war? What was their endgame?

Normally, in wars of independence you have an occupying force, and the strategic goal of the underdog is making the occupation so expensive that the occupant retreats. In 1861, except for Forts Sumter and Pickens, there were no Union troops occupying the south, and most of the war was fought on northern territory. That made the northern strategy quite simple: find the Confederate troops and destroy them. I wonder what would have happened if the South had decided to just establish all the things you need for a country's administration, send ambassadors to Europe and all that, and forced the North to make the first move. Maybe the Confederacy could have won the war by not starting it in the first place.

It all depended on the north maintaining the political will to continue the war. With a southern victory at Gettysburg and seizing Washington DC, a northern failure to take Vicksburg, then you can imagine the Democrats winning the 1864 election and then choosing a negotiated settlement. I don't know if such a scenario was realistic, but if the northern war effort collapsed, it would look something like that.

If they had unlimited resources and men. It would've been closer. Union did come out slow to start then revved it up.

My opinion about the topic:

Possibly, if certain Southern mistakes had been avoided. Lee's invasion of the North in 1863 leading to defeat at Gettysburg may have been a mistake, though if his subordinates had performed better on the second day, it might have been a Southern victory, which would've been hard for the North to swallow. But Lee's invasion of the North in 1862, leading to defeat at Antietam, was almost certainly a mistake, as the Southern troops were not in shape to fight or do damage in the North, and they were facing a scared Northern general (McClellan) who wouldn't have invaded them again. As bloody as Antietam was, the North could afford to lose the troops more than the South. If the South did not fight there, the Emancipation Proclamation wouldn't have happened when it did, and the Northern War effort would have looked more hopeless. Another factor is the Army of Tennessee. Another contributor here said that Shiloh was the key; if the South could've won that, they could've prevented Sherman's taking of Atlanta, and thereby prevented Lincoln's election. Maybe, but if the Army of Tennessee had performed better after Shiloh, Atlanta might not have been taken either. The main commander of the Army of the Tennessee in late 1862 and 1863, Bragg, was someone who alienated his staff, and divided his army. He got lucky at Chickamauga, but didn't exploit it fully. And there is no way he should have lost Chattanooga; Thomas's charge at Missionary ridge was far more suicidal than Pickett's charge at Gettysburg (if Pickett's charge was suicidal) yet it succeeded. The explanation for this has to be Bragg. And Jeff Davis knew that he was a problem, but did not remove him until it was too late.

Ehhhh, it would've taken a helluva lot. The North dominated the economic side of the war, and assuming it lasts for more than ~12 months, this is the most crucial aspect IMO.

OP, you pose a question that has been debated by historians and Civil War buffs for 150 years - could the South have won the war? I have attended Round Table discussions where this football was kicked around and listened to countless lectures which touch on the subject. From all of this, I think the general consensus answer to your question is - without a doubt.

I think that one of the more interesting approaches to this question involves asking how things might have been different if certain great men and not been killed or incapacitated at a certain time. As an example, had Albert Sydney Johnston not been killed at Shiloh in the Spring of '62, then the whole war in the Trans-Mississippi would have played out entirely differently. Johnston would never have allowed Vicksburg to be reduced and certainly the fate of Grant and Sherman would have been much the worse.

Or, more commonly, the question is asked "if Thomas Jackson isn't killed by his own pickets at Chancellorsville and been at Lee's side at Gettysburg, would the south have won the day there?' Gettysburg is, of course, the great fulcrum of the war and a Confederate victory there would have opened up endless possibilities.

You could discuss the refusal of Britain and France to formally recognize the Confederate States and how such a recognition would have changed the course of the war.

There are other interesting aspects and scenarios we could look at which might have impacted the outcome of the war, and it's fun to speculate on "what if".

The Trent affair. If the North overplayed their hand here or if Prince Albert had not toned down the British, the English fleet might have sailed against the North.
If Joe Johnston or Lee had disbanded but not surrendered their armies and ordered a guerrilla war.
If Jackson had behave better during the Seven days.
If Kentucky had went with the South.
If Foote was not in command of the navy in the West.
Any good size Southern victory in early or mid 1864 brings the Dem to power in the North.
Yes, the South could have won.

Sure it was possible. The real question is how could they have won? This was addressed by many posters in this thread.

I think the more interesting question is if the south would have survived as an independent country for long if they had "Won the Civil War"?

Would there have been follow-up wars?

Remember the south was fighting for it's independence, not to control the North and would not have most likely been successful at controlling the north as a territory anyway if they cause the North to Sue for peace.

How would later events like WWI and WWII played out if the conflict was not resolved?

Is it possible the south could have allied with Germany in WWI? I think it is very possible you could have actual fighting on North American shores.

How would this have effected the world depression of the 1930's and would the Nazi's have risen to power? How would this have effected communism rise?

If the south won it may have been a short term victory most likely an inevitable followup war over some issue.

If the North did not win and the US did not have a successful reconstruction, I think the world would be a significantly different place, and in most scenarios that I play out, not better for anyone living in the North or South of the US today.

Possible perhaps, but my opinion on this is that had two American nations been relatively closely matched in arms and allied with different powers in WWI, the more likely scenario is they just stay out of it altogether. After all, Germany floated the idea of opening an American front in Mexico, but the Mexican government never really considered it seriously. But this is pure speculation since the Confederacy winning depends largely on British support, which changes the whole diplomatic landscape... if anything, under that scenario, I'd say it's more likely the NORTH joins Germany in order to check a British/CSA alliance.

Almost certainly at least one war over Western expansion, given the nebulous legal standing of non-California land that was part of the Mexican Cession, and even CA itself might have been a source of conflict since the Confederacy would almost certainly have wanted a Pacific port for its export markets.

I like the scenario as you present it. I hadn't thought much about who joins who in WWI but clearly Germany was very a very different country then it was in WWII and it would have been easy to see the two North American countries taking opposite sides.

If the south won it would be a different world then we know today.

Also some of the institutions that the south was fighting for like continuing slavery may have continued much longer then we might imagine today. Who knows how much longer that mass slavery would have lasted in the modern world?

If Germany would have still rose to power, and the master plan was implemented. and they won that version of WWII (which was much more likely with a divided US) mass slavery of many groups of people could possibly still exist today, not only in west but the east as well.

A very different world.

I think many people look at this one dimensionally. Could the south have won? Certainly. You can always point to events that would change the course of history, but I can't imagine a situation where another conflict would not have happened.

North America might have looked more like Europe in the last century. Even with Canada and Mexico involved in major North American conflicts and potential wars. I don't see a situation where the South absorbs the North and American turns out anything like it is today, with reconstruction playing out like actually did but run by the South instead of the North.

Well, yes, but that's because the entire purpose of Reconstruction was to make the South more like the North.

Protections of black civil rights, the expansion of a base of small, free-holding farmers, breaking the power of plantation owners over Southern Legislatures... these clearly would not have happened if the South had won. The question of how long slavery would have continued is an interesting one, given how long the US continued slavery after most of the colonial overlords of the Caribbean abolished it (where it was even more profitable), and given that it was abolished in the US only after a violent conflict... given the state of race relations in the South, I don't think it's unrealistic to envision slavery past 1900.

The other scenario I see is the Confederacy waging a war of expansion against Mexico rather than the industrialized US.

If the South wins, it becomes an aggressive power. It would have designs on W. Va. DC. and the four slave states that stayed in the union. It would want at least part of New Mexico and trade rights in Ca. It would quickly seized Cuba and northern Mexico.

Cuba is an interesting X-Factor I hadn't considered--I agree that would have been a key part of their geostrategy. Of course, that assumes the Confederacy would have gotten its act together in organizing a professional army, since that's a large part of the reason they lost anyway.

Off track, but the estimate of Civil War dead has been raised in a new study to 750,000.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/sc...ml?ref=science

I'm surprised no one has commented on another factor, arguably the most important one. The Confederacy "died of states' rights" as historian Frank Owsley said. The state governors were very suspicious of Jefferson Davis, and made little attempt at a coordinated military strategy to defeat the North. (Somewhat like the lack of any real coordination between Nazi Germany, Italy, and Japan.) If that was the case, then a military victory by the Confedaracy may not have resulted in a strong southern rival to the US - it may have degenerated into something like Central or South America, with a large number of squabbling nations, engaged in petty border disputes.

This is a good point and another reason that I think the more interesting question is: if the south would have survived as an independent country for long if they had found a way to have "Won the Civil War"?

I can't see that if the south won it would have been just a short term victory with most likely an inevitable followup war over some issue with the North and/or other parties.

During the civil war, Napoleon III set up his puppet government in Mexico. This was seen in the north as a blatant offense to the Monroe doctrine, but Lincoln ignored it on the basis of one war at a time.

Meanwhile, some bright bulb suggested that the war could be ended permanently by arranging a cease fire for the purpose of uniting to invade Mexico and kick the French out. This idea came to nothing, but was seriously considered.

But Napoleon was more friendly to the south than politics allowed him to appear. Late in the war a CSA rep to France asked if they would have been recognized if they freed the slaves, and the French response was "slavery was never a big deal for us."

Had the CSA survived, a future conflict between it and the USA most likely would have arisen out of French interest in Mexico and the CSA having made some sort of arrangement with France. CSA would have been an effective buffer state between napoleonic Mexico and USA assertion of Monroe doctrine.

I don't really like the premise of the thread. Jeff Davis always recognized that the south didn't need to win the war; it needed only not to lose. Both thrusts into the north were ideas of subordinates, and both were intended to relieve pressure on southern forces in the west.

The point being that Jeff davis' strategy was that it was a sufficient victory condition for the CSA to remain in being; it didn't need to conquer the north or force the surrender of the army of the Potomac or whatever. CSA just needed to survive, not win. IMO, the thread doesn't really recognize this important distinction.

There was effectively 0 chance that the south could militarily defeat the north. Mainly this is a manpower and production argument, but the south was also handicapped by it's culture-- notably, the tendency of it's generals to lead from the front, which resulted in the southern general officer corps taking twice as many casualties as the northern officer corps. Lee's army was mistake prone toward the end of the war largely because thevattrition among generals caused subordinate units to be led by officers who were new and inexperienced in their commands.

But mainly it was a manpower and production disparity that made it impossible for them to actually militarily defeat the US.

The CSA did come really close to wearing out northern morale, though. Right befor Atlanta and mobile bay, it was conventional wisdom in the Lincoln administration that they were going to lose the election.

It wouldn't have taken much more than what the south actually accomplished to cost Lincoln the election. Just holding Sherman at bay until after the election might have been enough.

Also, as someone upthread suggested, the CSA could have won the war by not fighting it. Had the CSA written gradual emancipation into it's constitution, it very likely would have achieved quick recognition from England, which would have cleared thevway for French recognition. Probably Russia would have been the third of the major powers to recognize the south. France and England were both more sympathetic to the south than slavery ever allowed them to appear, only in part because they needed southern cotton so much. Together, those countries probably could have exerted enough pressure on the US to prevent or abort the war, and probably would have but for slavery.

Other than not considering emancipation as a sacrifice worth independence, the big mistake the CSA made was in not realizing it was necessary by 1863. Cleburne recognized it, but his plan for freeing and enlisting blacks was suppressed and not seriously considered until about the same time Petersburg was besieged.

Had a program of emancipation and enlistment been begun when cleburne suggested it, the whole course of the war changes from 1863 on, as does the international situation. It's actually hard to imagine the US winning the war under those circumstances, what with the huge pool of additional manpower this would have made available, and the increased moral authority it would have given the south.

It would have driven a huge wedge between hawks in the north. Lincoln always maintained early in the war that he was fighting the war to preserve the union, but to the radical republicans it was always a war to free the slaves. The radical republican argument for the war loses a lot of force in the face if a CSA program to free slaves and loses even more in the face of free blacks fighting for the CSA.

This again is another way in which the CSA was hamstrung by it's culture. Opponents if the cleburne plan (when it surfaced) correctly identified the problem by saying that if blacks could make effective soldiers, then the whole theory of slavery was wrong. And they simply didn't want to have to face evidence that the theory was, in fact, wrong.

So the bottom line is that the south basically had several clear paths to survival, and it just refused to take them. It chose, instead, the mist difficult path if wearing out the north, and even then only failed by a few months.

The South could not defend all areas of the South against Northern Invasion. By trying to, they had to lose. Lost of New Orleans and Roanoke Island were just two results of this policy . While other policies would have resulted in similar loses the "defend everything" one meant that not once in the entire war was an important area lost by the South ever regained. NO gone was gone forever. Areas lost were lost forever.

I'm not sure what you say is 100% true (see, e.g., the Shenandoah Valley). But granting the point, it wasn't inevitable that it would turn out the way it did. First, a lot of the reason what you say is true can be explained by two words--Braxton Bragg. Second, the CSA made some important mistakes in manpower-related decisions that affected the outcome.

My opinion is that they did have sufficient manpower to conduct a strategic defense had they correctly utilized and allocated the manpower they had. But two key mistakes--the failure to enlist blacks and improper use of state militias (some of which were legally prohibited from leaving the state)--severely crippled their effort.

Another interesting issue that arose during the course of the war that I think the CSA bungled was the high rate of desertion after the draft was instituted. This was a major problem that as far as I can tell, the CSA never really tried to address except in half assed ways like offering amnesty to deserters that returned to their units.

Had the CSA better allocated its manpower by not making these three mistakes, they would have conducted a more effective defensive. And their defensive did not have to be that much more effective to break the union's will; they only missed by a couple of months as it was.

Youre assuming the Southern war effort was ever coordinated. Or, adequately led. Even in the ANV, Lee relied almost exclusively on himself while the North had tons of general staff. Fully half the active officer corps at the outset of war that was Southern stayed loyal to the Union, and the North had more Congressional districts from which to appoint to West Point to start with. You're right on Braxton Bragg, his idea of tactics was fix bayonets and charge everything. His strategy was the same.

Even if the South gets its 1864 indpendence, the political future is wrought with problems. North Carolina, Virginian, and Tennessee were the last to secede, and different from the Deep South. They were whiter, more economically and religously diverse, and linked to the North in Va and Tn, or insular like NC. Democracy would have led to strife with the "planter" states. Westward expansion might have found the CSA at odds with the USA and France/Mexico. California was so staunchly Union and Republican, it could have waged a western war vs the CSA on its own. The dependance on cotton for currency and finance would always be an Achilles Heel for a future war. Anaconda II and the advent of an iron Navy would have meant even less blockade running. Frontier Indian policy would have been interesting with the North pushing hostile tribes on the Southern frontier, and white Southerners wanting any halfway arable Indian country. Even the deep South white working class would have seen and desired the Northern standard of living, especially in a country even more servicing planter interests(no infrastructure that didnt help cotton and no textile industrialization that brought a lot out of poverty).

European recognition was never going to be a panacea as naval war 3000 miles away for Britain or France was an economic disaster waiting to happen to open Southern ports, and no way an amphibious invasion works like 1812 or 1776. For all intents and purposes, New England plus the Midwest was the strongest potential military complex of its day. Internal transport and manpower was staggering against any expeditionary force, period.

For all intents and purposes the Shenandoah was neutral country. It had a lot of religious pacifists, and Union volunteers/sympathizers to go with some Confederates. It was never a reliable home front, more like an invasion dagger aimed at Richmond.

I agree with all this but the might leads to a bigger "maybe" then the South can win .

If Lincoln and the Republican lost the election they had about 5 months to win the war or comes close before the Dems. and McClellan took power in March. With Atlanta in Union hands and little in Sherman's way, with Lee trapped in Richmond/Peterburg, McClellan would not be able to give the South its freedom.