Did the South have a chance to win the Civil War?

[Vanadium 50]

Before we beat on Clausewitz too much, I think his "politics by other means" comment is germane. The South started the war because they felt a political solution didn't exist. However, had they thought it through, they would have realized that a war wouldn't create such a solution. (Ignoring crazy options like the Golden Circle)

 

[Drakkith]

However, had they thought it through, they would have realized that a war wouldn't create such a solution. (Ignoring crazy options like the Golden Circle)

But! But thinking is hard!

 

[Astronuc]

But! But thinking is hard!

Not for physicists! Thinking is what physicists and PFers do!

 

[Klystron]

I have been skimming/reading comments accompanying various articles in prominent digital newspapers for the past year in an attempt to understand some of the thinking underlying current US politics. Certain themes emerge.

I am appalled at blase suggestions that a 'second American Civil War' is not only inevitable but righteous even desirable in place of reasoned discourse and thoughtful compromise. Even a cursory understanding of the carnage and suffering unleashed by civil wars throughout history should make this idea untenable to all but the depraved. Ignoring morality in order examine the practical, whom do these armchair generals expect to be fighting?

One reason to contribute to threads that rationally examine history is to continually educate and remind ourselves of previous folly in order to avoid repeating past errors.

 

[timmeister37]

I'm no historian but a lot of your points seem to be "monday morning quarterbacking." The plan you lay out for how the confederates should have or could have waged the war depends on rapid accurate communication that simply was not available in the 1860s. As to the preparation in the run up to the war, who knew that war would actually break out? Who knew which states would and would not secede? Politics and policy are inherently messy, things develop one day at a time. So some chaos and mistakes are inevitable.

As an aside, arguments from authority hold no water, but... an offhand dismissal of Shelby Foote's views seems ill-advised.

Among historians, Shelby Foote is considered as a storyteller not a real historian. Foote's trilogy relies almost exclusively on secondary sources. He did little or no original research. He did not even provide any footnotes in his trilogy.

Most people on this thread seem to agree with gmax's comment in post #9 that dismissing Foote's assertion that the South never had a chance to win the civil war is ill-advised. Gmax's post #9 got 7 likes.

ACW historians James McPherson, Gary Gallagher, and Kenneth Gott all contend that the South did have a chance to win the ACW.

Gary Gallagher said that the South could have won the CW in a video in a public conference about comparing & contrasting Lincoln and jeff davis. This video is on youtube. I will prolly provide instructions on how to access in a later post or just edit this post to add it.

In the epilogue of James mcpherson's book battle cry of freedom, mcpherson said that the imbalance in resources did NOT make it strictly preordained that the North would win. Mcpherson points out that in terms of resources, the Netherlands won their war against spain to gain their independence despite being more outmatched against spain in terms of resources than the confederacy was outmatched against the union in resources.

In Kenneth gott's book Where the South lost the war, Gott's thesis is that the south lost the war at forts henry and donelson, which implies that the south had a chance in thr first place or there would be nothing to lose.

I find it ironic that a bunch of posters on physics forums think they know better than the consensus of ACW historiams about whether or not the south had a chance to win the ACW!

 

[timmeister37]

To see proof that emminent ACW Historian Gary Gallagher agrees with my thesis, go to youtube and search for a video titled "Lincoln and Davis: War Presidents". At about 4 minutes into the video, Gallagher unequivocally states that the South did have a chance to win the Civil War and gallagher even states "Don't be beguiled by Shelby Foote, who says that 'The North fought that war with one hand tied behind their back..."

 

[timmeister37]

FYI, this is not how this forum works. All posts must be consistent with the professional literature on the topic. That includes historical analysis. The proper response to such a request would have been simply to cite Gallagher, McPherson, or Gott where they made similar claims.

Please realize that this is an essential part of what makes PF different from other sites. Such a request for references should always be honored and complied with here.

I give references to Gallagher, McPherson, and Gott in posts 110 and 111.

 

[HallsofIvy]

I'm inclined to agree that the south "never had a chance to win the war" but it was not clear at the time! What chance the south had to win did not depend upon its resources but on the will of the northern people. There were plenty of people in the north who were willing to "sweep the problem (of slavery) under the rug" by letting the south go. As I said before, many northern leaders did not believe the people had sufficient will. Even Abraham Lincoln thought he would lose the 1864 election.

 

[BillTre]

I give references to Gallagher, McPherson, and Gott in posts 110 and 111.

Please provide links.

 

[HallsofIvy]

Thought I'd ask for information here. I have read (but no longer remember where) that the reason Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, and other Confederate leaders were never tried for treason was that such a case would clearly have wound up in the Supreme Court and people were concerned that there was a distinct possibility that the Supreme Court, ruling solely on constitutional law, would determine that states did have the right to secede!

Any information or thoughts on that?

 

[Drakkith]

I find it ironic that a bunch of posters on physics forums think they know better than the consensus of ACW historiams about whether or not the south had a chance to win the ACW!

If you reread the thread I think you'll find multiple people who have readily agreed that the south had some chance to win. The questions are how big of a chance did they have, and by what means would they have won?

In the epilogue of James mcpherson's book battle cry of freedom, mcpherson said that the imbalance in resources did NOT make it strictly preordained that the North would win. Mcpherson points out that in terms of resources, the Netherlands won their war against spain to gain their independence despite being more outmatched against spain in terms of resources than the confederacy was outmatched against the union in resources.

I'm not familiar with this particular conflict, but I think I can safely say that the ACW was an entirely different beast compared to Netherlands was for independence. The ACW is widely regarded as one of the first industrial wars in history, a type of war that is very different from the ones that came before. Not that this means that I agree that the south had zero chance to win. I absolutely think they did have a chance. I only mean to point out that the parallels you can draw between the ACW and the Netherlands war against Spain are very limited.

In Kenneth gott's book Where the South lost the war, Gott's thesis is that the south lost the war at forts henry and donelson, which implies that the south had a chance in thr first place or there would be nothing to lose.

I'm sure Gott has a line of reasoning that leads him to this, but without knowing it I can't comment on it. All I can say is that if the Union doesn't take forts Henry and Donelson, what happens instead? More specifically, why don't they take them? What events happen instead of actual history? I find is extremely difficult to believe that the outcome of an entire war depends upon taking two forts during the first year of the war.

 

[Vanadium 50]

that there was a distinct possibility that the Supreme Court, ruling solely on constitutional law, would determine that states did have the right to secede!

Any information or thoughts on that?

The Chase court ruled (5-3) in Texas v. White that states did not have the right to secede. Specifically, that Texas remained a state throughout the Civil War. This is in 1869. If there were a treason trial in, say. 1866, there would have been a ninth justice, John Canton. While one vote wouldn't have mattered, Canton was an anti-secessionist from Tennessee, so it would like be 6-3.

Of course, just because a fear is unwarranted doesn't mean it isn't there.

 

[member 656954]

I find it ironic that a bunch of posters on physics forums think they know better than the consensus of ACW historiams about whether or not the south had a chance to win the ACW!

Do you normally denigrate people when they disagree with you, @timmeister37? Because Physics Forum has not changed its name or intent since you posted your thesis, and I can't see anyone who has been rude or impolite to you, so that says more about you than anyone else here. If you only intended to interact with ACW historians, maybe post on a specialist history site.

There is only one fact in your OP: the South lost the war. Everything else is conjecture, supposition, and opinion. The opinion may be informed...or not...but none of what any of us think or say changes the fact, as fun as discussing 'what might have been' is.

 

[timmeister37]

If you reread the thread I think you'll find multiple people who have readily agreed that the south had some chance to win. The questions are how big of a chance did they have, and by what means would they have won?
I'm not familiar with this particular conflict, but I think I can safely say that the ACW was an entirely different beast compared to Netherlands was for independence. The ACW is widely regarded as one of the first industrial wars in history, a type of war that is very different from the ones that came before. Not that this means that I agree that the south had zero chance to win. I absolutely think they did have a chance. I only mean to point out that the parallels you can draw between the ACW and the Netherlands war against Spain are very limited.
I'm sure Gott has a line of reasoning that leads him to this, but without knowing it I can't comment on it. All I can say is that if the Union doesn't take forts Henry and Donelson, what happens instead? More specifically, why don't they take them? What events happen instead of actual history? I find is extremely difficult to believe that the outcome of an entire war depends upon taking two forts during the first year of the war.

Fort Henry is on either the Tennessee river or the cumberland river, and Fort Donelson is on either the Tennessee river or cumberland river. The two rivers were the umbilical cords into the heart of the South. The artillery in the two forts made it difficult for Union ships to pass by in the river.

When the condederacy lost the two forts, the Union had ready and quick access into the heart of the South.

 

[timmeister37]

Do you normally denigrate people when they disagree with you, @timmeister37? Because Physics Forum has not changed its name or intent since you posted your thesis, and I can't see anyone who has been rude or impolite to you, so that says more about you than anyone else here. If you only intended to interact with ACW historians, maybe post on a specialist history site.

There is only one fact in your OP: the South lost the war. Everything else is conjecture, supposition, and opinion. The opinion may be informed...or not...but none of what any of us think or say changes the fact, as fun as discussing 'what might have been' is.

No. Re-read the OP.

 

[timmeister37]

Please provide links.

I can only access the internet via cell phone right now, not laptop. I cannot provide links on cell. But i have given enuff info for you or anyone else to verify my sources.

Just type "Lincoln and Davis: War Presidents" in the search bar on youtube and the first video to pop up will be the Mcpherson-Gallagher discussion. Go to 4 minutes in. Simple as that. You could see and hear this and complete this inside 3 minutes if you have decent internet connection.

 

[timmeister37]

Please provide links.

Did you goto youtube & type in "Lincoln and Davis: War Presidents" and listen to what Gallagher said at about 4 minutes into the video?

 

[BWV]

and the Union could have won in 1862 had a more aggressive commander exploited Lee’s vulnerable position at Antietam. The South could never have won the war of attrition that ensued, their only hope was a lack of political will for the North to bear the cost.

 

[Drakkith]

Fort Henry is on either the Tennessee river or the cumberland river, and Fort Donelson is on either the Tennessee river or cumberland river. The two rivers were the umbilical cords into the heart of the South. The artillery in the two forts made it difficult for Union ships to pass by in the river.

When the condederacy lost the two forts, the Union had ready and quick access into the heart of the South.

You're missing my point. Let's say Grant fails to take Forts Donelson and Henry. What's to stop the Union from just trying again? It took over two years to take Kentucky and Tennessee, with many battles and skirmishes along the way. A single defeat may or may not mean anything in the long run. The whole idea that Grant failing to take Forts Henry and Donelson means that the Confederacy wins is ridiculous and extremely short sighted, as it ignores the fact that either A.) Grant or someone else just tries again or B.) Union forces adapt and do something else, such as moving south, putting themselves between the forts and A.S. Johnston's forces, and forcing the CSA to fight out in the open instead of sieging the forts.

Your implied scenario is really that forts Henry and Donelson aren't taken. Ever. In the entire course of the war (or at least a large part of it). Which is a ridiculous scenario. If the Union was anything, it was persistent, even in the face of constant defeat. And keep in mind that Grant tried for months to take Vicksburg, a MUCH more difficult target. I see no reason why he wouldn't have eventually taken Henry and Donelson, regardless of how well they were built or where they were placed.

 

[timmeister37]

You're missing my point. Let's say Grant fails to take Forts Donelson and Henry. What's to stop the Union from just trying again? It took over two years to take Kentucky and Tennessee, with many battles and skirmishes along the way. A single defeat may or may not mean anything in the long run. The whole idea that Grant failing to take Forts Henry and Donelson means that the Confederacy wins is ridiculous and extremely short sighted, as it ignores the fact that either A.) Grant or someone else just tries again or B.) Union forces adapt and do something else, such as moving south, putting themselves between the forts and A.S. Johnston's forces, and forcing the CSA to fight out in the open instead of sieging the forts.

Your implied scenario is really that forts Henry and Donelson aren't taken. Ever. In the entire course of the war (or at least a large part of it). Which is a ridiculous scenario. If the Union was anything, it was persistent, even in the face of constant defeat. And keep in mind that Grant tried for months to take Vicksburg, a MUCH more difficult target. I see no reason why he wouldn't have eventually taken Henry and Donelson, regardless of how well they were built or where they were placed.

That the South lost the ACW at fort henry and donelson is Gott's thesis, not mine.

For me, henry and donelson are just more things to add to a long list of confederate mistakes.

 

[member 656954]

No. Re-read the OP.

No? No to what, exactly?

You've triggered an interesting and enduring debate, @timmeister37, where most posts don't, so being gracious with it as PF'ers have disagreed with, dismantled, and agreed your points seems a fair ask. Anyway, I've read your OP a few times and it is still a small list of "failed to" and "should have" cherry picked from a four year conflict and seemingly because your opinion differs from some other guys opinion of whether the South could have won.

All we know for sure is that they didn't win, everything else is conjecture.

 

[timmeister37]

No? No to what, exactly?

No to your statement that there is only one fact in the OP.

 

[russ_watters]

In Kenneth gott's book Where the South lost the war, Gott's thesis is that the south lost the war at forts henry and donelson, which implies that the south had a chance in thr first place or there would be nothing to lose.

I'd have to see what was actually said and the explanation of it in order to accept that interpretation, because the way you put it, it could easily be interpreted to say that "once the war begun, the south could not win" (because those were among the first significant battles).

I find it ironic that a bunch of posters on physics forums think they know better than the consensus of ACW historiams about whether or not the south had a chance to win the ACW!

Do you have any sources that claim a consensus view? By which I actually mean use the word "consensus"? Or is that just your interpretation from the sources you are reading?

 

[timmeister37]

I'd have to see what was actually said and the explanation of it in order to accept that interpretation, because the way you put it, it could easily be interpreted to say that "once the war begun, the south could not win" (because those were among the first significant battles).

In Gott's book, Gott is unequivocal about this. Gott says that the Confederacy had a chance to keep Forts Henry and Donelson. And Gott explains the Confederate mistakes that caused the confederacy to lose Forts Henry and Donelson. Therefore, Gott is implying that the South had a chance to win the war at the outset of the war.

Do you have any sources that claim a consensus view? By which I actually mean use the word "consensus"? Or is that just your interpretation from the sources you are reading?

I don't have any sources that claim a consensus view. However, when i research the views of real peer-reviewed ACW historians that are not considered to be storytellers (which excludes Shelby Foote), the score is 3 to nothing in favor of the thesis that the South did have a chance to win the Civil War.P.S. Shelby Foote is widely considered to be a storyteller, not a real historian among ACW historians. Have you noticed that nobody on this thread has given a single name of any historian other than shelby foote who says that the South never had a chance to win the ACW? i defy anyone to name one. You can't!

 

[Astronuc]

To see proof that emminent ACW Historian Gary Gallagher agrees with my thesis, go to youtube and search for a video titled "Lincoln and Davis: War Presidents". At about 4 minutes into the video, Gallagher unequivocally states that the South did have a chance to win the Civil War and gallagher even states "Don't be beguiled by Shelby Foote, who says that 'The North fought that war with one hand tied behind their back..."

Gallagher stated that it could have gone either way, which is not the same as saying that the South had a (better than even) chance to win. Nevertheless, 50/50, is a chance, as are 1/10, 1/100, 1/1000, or 1/1,000,000. The Northern forces spent a lot more time in Tennessee and Virginia than the Southern forces spent in Maryland and Pennsylvania. Had the CSA won at Gettysburg and made it to Harrisburg (Pennsylvania), then the CSA might have had an even chance. In football, if one's opponent spends most of the game in one's half of the field and scores touchdowns or goals, then one is likely losing with little chance of winning.

I find it ironic that a bunch of posters on physics forums think they know better than the consensus of ACW historiams about whether or not the south had a chance to win the ACW!

Besides adding other reasons that the CSA lost the CW, or at least would reduce the probability of winning, the majority of posts question the original post, or ask for citations or additional information that would support the thesis.

The members of PF are quite capable of reading and comprehending the work of others, be we also expect those who make assertions regarding statements of fact to provide evidence. It is incumbent upon those making claims to provide supporting evidence concerning the claims.

Fort Henry is on either the Tennessee river or the cumberland river, and Fort Donelson is on either the Tennessee river or cumberland river. The two rivers were the umbilical cords into the heart of the South. The artillery in the two forts made it difficult for Union ships to pass by in the river.

The reader may get the impression that one is not doing any homework, or doesn't bother to do the research. Fort Henry was on the east bank of the Tennessee River, and Fort Donelson was on the west bank of the Cumberland River.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Henry
https://tennesseeencyclopedia.net/entries/fort-henry/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Donelson
https://tennesseeencyclopedia.net/entries/fort-donelson/

Some battles won by CSA, but many lost, and particularly key battles lost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Theater_of_the_American_Civil_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Theater_of_the_American_Civil_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley_campaigns_of_1864

https://tennesseeencyclopedia.net/entries/Albert-sidney-johnston/
https://tennesseeencyclopedia.net/entries/battle-of-shiloh/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson's_operations_against_the_B&O_Railroad_(1861)
https://www.historynet.com/baltimore-ohio-railroad-the-unions-most-important-supply-line.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_and_Potomac_Railroad
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_railroads_in_the_American_Civil_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Front_Royal

The problem was that Winchester only had one connection at Harpers Ferry. They had not extended the line south Strasburg to connect with a line from Strasburg to Front Royal. The state of Virginia should have extended the line from Winchester to Roanoke to be of any use, but the states were more interested in east-west, not north-south (or NE-SW) corridors. In the map of the Battle of Front Royal, note the lack of railroad connections either to Strasburg or Front Royal. A line from Winchester to Strasburg was later made after the CW by the B&O (now CSX).

Another problem was the B&O equipment was only useful in Virginia and eastern North Carolina. Much of the rest of the south was a wider gauge. See the map in the Wikipedia article on Confederate_railroads_in_the_American_Civil_War.

In 1#, there are several factors mentioned, but the gist of #1 is that the Confederacy was ill-prepared, which left little margin of error to lose the war. Point 12# is related. There was little or no international support or sustainable commerce, which would be susceptible to interference from a strong navy and blockade.

#2 and 3# related to the viability of Forts Henry and Donelson, which when lost allowed the Union to penetrate the center of the Confederacy. "The Union Army gained military control of Tennessee in 1862 and occupied it for the duration of the war, having taken control of strategic cities and railroads."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Bedford_Forrest#Sacramento_and_Fort_Donelson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Bedford_Forrest#Dover,_Brentwood,_and_Chattanooga

4# concerns the defense of Vicksburg, or the failure thereof, and subsequent loss allowing the Union to control the Mississippi and split Texas and Arkansas from the rest of the Confederacy.

5# relates to #4 in that the CFA did not have a strong enough Navy to defend coastal cities like New Orleans.

9# relates to 1#, poor planning on top of ill-prepared. Also, 9# could have included 5# and 6#. All major cities were vulnerable. CSA didn't have enough troops.

7# and 8# boil down to tactical errors and "not enough troops"

11#, certainly losing Stonewall Jackson was significant. It would have been like the Union losing Grant, Sherman or Sheridan.

13# is a point made in https://tennesseeencyclopedia.net/entries/leonidas-polk/, plus Polk was probably not a good commander.

The North sustained more casualties, but had more troops and reinforcements. The CSA forces were thinly spread along a broad front.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Theater_of_the_American_Civil_War#Major_land_battles
Sort by Date

    Major Battle             State        Date or Dates
Battle of Seven Pines       Virginia      May 31 – June 1, 1862
Battle of Gaines's Mill     Virginia      June 27, 1862           
Battle of Malvern Hill      Virginia      July 1, 1862           
2nd Battle of Bull Run      Virginia      August 28–30, 1862   
Battle of Antietam          Maryland      September 17, 1862   
Battle of Fredericksburg    Virginia      December 11–15, 1862   
Battle of Chancellorsville  Virginia      May 1–4, 1863           
Battle of Gettysburg         Pennsylvania  July 1–3, 1863       
Battle of the Wilderness    Virginia      May 5–7, 1864           
Battle of Spotsylvania CH   Virginia      May 8–21, 1864       
Battle of Cold Harbor       Virginia      May 31 – June 12, 1864
2nd Battle of Petersburg    Virginia      June 15–18, 1864       
Battle of Opequon           Virginia      September 19, 1864   
Battle of Cedar Creek       Virginia      October 19, 1864       
3rd Battle of Petersburg    Virginia      April 2, 1865           
Battle of Sailor's Creek    Virginia      April 6, 1865           
Battle of Appomattox CH     Virginia      April 9, 1865

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Theater_of_the_American_Civil_War#Major_land_battles

    Major Battle             State        Date or Dates
Battle of Shiloh            Tennessee     April 6–7, 1862
Battle of Richmond, Ky      Kentucky      August 29–30, 1862   
2nd Battle of Corinth         Mississippi   October 3–4, 1862   
Battle of Perryville        Kentucky      October 8, 1862       
Battle of Stones River      Tennessee     December 31, 1862 – January 2, 1863
Battle of Champion Hill     Mississippi   May 16, 1863
Siege of Vicksburg          Mississippi   May 18–July 4, 1863   
Siege of Port Hudson        Louisiana     May 22 – July 9, 1863
Battle of Chickamauga       Georgia       September 19–20, 1863
Battle of Missionary Ridge  Tennessee     November 25, 1863   
Battle of Peachtree Creek   Georgia       July 20, 1864       
Battle of Atlanta           Georgia       July 22, 1864       
Battle of Franklin          Tennessee     November 30, 1864   
Battle of Nashville         Tennessee       December 15–16, 1864

 

[Astronuc]

P.S. Shelby Foote is widely considered to be a storyteller, not a real historian among ACW historians. Have you noticed that nobody on this thread has given a single name of any historian other than shelby foote who says that the South never had a chance to win the ACW? i defy anyone to name one. You can't!

Perhaps Robert Krick, although Krick doesn't explicitly give a probability of winning, but rather points to 21 million to 7 million being the population of the Union (North) and CSA (South), respectively. Implicitly that means more troops and resources.

Perhaps there are others in the list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Historians_of_the_American_Civil_War

I read one article that put the South's probability of winning as much as 2:1, but there was no analysis.

https://www.historynet.com/why-the-...page-february-99-american-history-feature.htm
Various authors (and historians) offer different perspectives on why the Confederacy lost. See Krick's comments. Or Edwin C. Bearss, "The South lost the Civil War because of a number of factors. First, it was inherently weaker in the various essentials to win a military victory than the North."

Gary Gallagher - "The primary reason the Confederates did not have more success on the battlefield is that they developed only one really talented army commander, and that, of course, was Robert E. Lee." On the other hand, I read somewhere that Lee had no combat experience, unlike Jefferson Davis and others who fought in the Mexican-American War.

Blake Stilwell - 6 simple reasons the Union won the Civil War
https://www.wearethemighty.com/history/why-union-won-civil-war

Mackubin T. Owens - Why Did the Confederacy Lose?
https://ashbrook.org/publications/oped-owens-07-confederacy/

Perhaps the most relevant quantitative assessment - Victory or Repudiation? The Probability of the Southern Confederacy Winning the Civil War, Marc D. Weidenmier, Kim Oosterlinck
https://www.nber.org/papers/w13567

Michael E. Woods - What Twenty-First-Century Historians Have Said about the Causes of Disunion: A Civil War Sesquicentennial Review of the Recent Literature
https://academic.oup.com/jah/article/99/2/415/860501

 

[timmeister37]

Perhaps Robert Krick, although Krick doesn't explicitly give a probability of winning, but rather points to 21 million to 7 million being the population of the Union (North) and CSA (South), respectively. Implicitly that means more troops and resources.

Perhaps there are others in the list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Historians_of_the_American_Civil_War

I read one article that put the South's probability of winning as much as 2:1, but there was no analysis.

https://www.historynet.com/why-the-...page-february-99-american-history-feature.htm
Various authors (and historians) offer different perspectives on why the Confederacy lost. See Krick's comments. Or Edwin C. Bearss, "The South lost the Civil War because of a number of factors. First, it was inherently weaker in the various essentials to win a military victory than the North."

Gary Gallagher - "The primary reason the Confederates did not have more success on the battlefield is that they developed only one really talented army commander, and that, of course, was Robert E. Lee." On the other hand, I read somewhere that Lee had no combat experience, unlike Jefferson Davis and others who fought in the Mexican-American War.

Blake Stilwell - 6 simple reasons the Union won the Civil War
https://www.wearethemighty.com/history/why-union-won-civil-war

Mackubin T. Owens - Why Did the Confederacy Lose?
https://ashbrook.org/publications/oped-owens-07-confederacy/

Perhaps the most relevant quantitative assessment - Victory or Repudiation? The Probability of the Southern Confederacy Winning the Civil War, Marc D. Weidenmier, Kim Oosterlinck
https://www.nber.org/papers/w13567

Michael E. Woods - What Twenty-First-Century Historians Have Said about the Causes of Disunion: A Civil War Sesquicentennial Review of the Recent Literature
https://academic.oup.com/jah/article/99/2/415/860501

Astronuc, it is still 3 to nothing.

 

[timmeister37]

Gallagher stated that it could have gone either way, which is not the same as saying that the South had a (better than even) chance to win. Nevertheless, 50/50, is a chance, as are 1/10, 1/100, 1/1000, or 1/1,000,000. The Northern forces spent a lot more time in Tennessee and Virginia than the Southern forces spent in Maryland and Pennsylvania.

The topic of the thread is whether or not the South ever had any chance to win the Civil War.

Why did you shift the goalposts from "did the South have a chance to win the civil war" to "did the South have a better than even chance to win the civil war"? In a fair debate, i thought someone taking the "South never had a chance" position would have heard the Gallagher quote and admitted to me that that is a point for my side. Instead, i did not get that admission from you, and you shifted the goalposts to avoid giving me that point. Are you just arguing with me for the sake of arguing?

Gary Gallagher unequivocally and unreservedly agrees with my thesis that the South had a chance to win the civil war.

As to your goalpost shift, i admit that Confederate victory was against long odds, but that does not mean impossible odds.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Astronuc, it is still 3 to nothing.

He treats you seriously, and this is how you repay him?

 

[timmeister37]

He treats you seriously, and this is how you repay him?

I was making the point that he has not cited a single ACW historian who agrees with the storyteller Shelby foote's thesis. I don't think any of the historians he cited explicitly state that the South never had a chance. The historians he cited just talk about how the south fought against long odds. So is it not still three to nothing (excluding the storyteller)?

 

[Drakkith]

The topic of the thread is whether or not the South ever had any chance to win the Civil War.

Of course they had some non-zero chance to win. You don't hold out for 4 years and win many major battles if you never had a chance to begin with. But that's a trivial and boring question, as it encourages very little discussion.

If, instead, we discuss how much of a chance the CSA had, and look into the details of why, I think the discussion would be far more interesting and productive. It need not devolve into a "right or wrong" type of conversation.

 

[timmeister37]

Of course they had some non-zero chance to win. You don't hold out for 4 years and win many major battles if you never had a chance to begin with. But that's a trivial and boring question, as it encourages very little discussion.

If, instead, we discuss how much of a chance the CSA had, and look into the details of why, I think the discussion would be far more interesting and productive. It need not devolve into a "right or wrong" type of conversation.

Drakkith, Shelby Foote and many non-historians disagree with you and me. Therefore, this is worth discussing. This aint a strawman.

 

[Drakkith]

Drakkith, Shelby Foote and many non-historians disagree with you and me. Therefore, this is worth discussing. This aint a strawman.

I don't think they do. I don't believe any of them meant zero, absolutely zero, nothing but a zero, no chance whatsoever no matter what. I think they meant, whether they said it or not, that the south had no reasonable chance to win, such that they were comfortable saying "no, they never had a chance."

 

[Vanadium 50]

Lloyd : What are my chances?
Mary: Not good.
Lloyd: You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?
Mary: I'd say more like one out of a million.
Lloyd: So you're telling me there's a chance.

 

[PeterDonis]

Lloyd: So you're telling me there's a chance.

Beyond the Fringe got there several decades earlier with Dudley Moore as a one-legged man applying to play Tarzan:



Cook: However, don't despair, after all, you score over a man with no legs at all. Should a legless man come in here demanding the role, I should have no hesitation in saying, get out! right away.

Moore: So there's still a chance?