What, in your opinion, could the South

[no guns here]

At first bull run they could have followed retreating northern troops back into washington as it was unprotected . Lincoln would not have had time to build troop strength and lost support most likely as many in the north didn't care for the war in the first place.

I agree entirely.  Washington DC was low hanging fruit that was ripe for the picking.  I can not believe that the southern commanders couldn't see that and capitalize upon it immediately.

Likewise, at Gettysburg.  Tie up the northern forces and in two days the rest of the southern army would have been on the steps of the capital.

Fighting a war of attrition against a foe with superior numbers, equipment and financing was stupid.  Guerilla warfare based on small unit tactics spread out against the north would have forced a withdrawal of large numbers of union troops.
Lightening raids deep into the north to destroy foundries, food stocks, live-stock and to burn cities and towns would have been most helpful.  I would have waited until late summer (dry season, just before harvest) and sent men out with the intention of burning every forest and field they could set fire too in the north.  I would have set a line of forest fires hundreds of miles long.  This would have destroyed towns and cities, crops, game animals, domesticated animals, factories, mills etc.  Of course, setting fire to the forest and fields in the right circumstances would destroyed or dispersed union forces as well.  Whole armies would flee forest fires.  Gear and arms would be dropped and destroyed.


The south tried to fight a traditional war of attrition.  They tried to destroy the enemy in battle instead of trying to destroy their ability and will to fight.  500 men split up into non-descript groups of 3-4 men with instructions to set fire to everything they could would have had incredible effect on the people and industry of northern states where the war didn't reach directly.  Imagine burning large parts of New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, etc.  The effect on production and morale would have been very significant.

Lining up and fighting in ranks against a larger force on open ground was stupid.



NGH

[SHOOTALL]

NGH , sort a bunch of Jess James ? 

[williamlayton]

Good tatics if co-ordinated, though.
Blessings

[Swampman]

I do not understand in this world why the eleventh commandment was not their shall have no slaves is a mystery to me.

Because it was considered normal and proper up until a few years ago.  It's still practiced in Africa.

I'm not saying it's right or good.  I'm saying there's a reason for everything and we don't usually understand that reason.  We aren't God.

[SHOOTALL]

That is always the excuse isn't it ?
By your line of thought it should be OK today ?

[SHOOTALL]

Or better yet is sex before marraige or with another mans wife ok now as some see it as normal ? It is still praticed in some places .

[Swampman]

There's a book with rules in it.  I didn't write it.

[SHOOTALL]

Man had a hand in it , some books were ignored as we are finding out . And we were warned to be aware of false churches were we not ?

[no guns here]

SHOOTALL,

I would have ordered my guerillas to stay out of sight and avoid contact at all costs.  Lay low, stay out of sight, only come out at night, never fight unless forced.  The attack would be scheduled to begin on a certain day regardless each teams location.  On that day, they would start burning everything.  Ride fast, throw molotavs and torchs, keep riding.  Fires would be set at night to get the most damage out of them before folks were able to even attempt an organized response.  I probably would have sent them on a long trek to the west and then had them come in to the union states from the northwest, perhaps through Ohio area.  They would then have dispersed to pre-selected AOR's with orders to burn everything of value that they could with a special emphasis on powder production, foundries, textile mills, food supplies and bridges.  I would have briefed them to pay attention to the wind and to let the wind do as much of their work as possible.  At some point they would have to move into the cities and become part of the population with orders to wait for a second date, at which time surviving teams would begin burning wooden structures and trying to set widespread fires in the major cities.  Lifes a B$%^&* and so is war.  Sherman did it but I would have done it first...  Deprive the union of as many supplies as possible.  Make them recall troops to patrol the north.  Make the civilians suffer and demand an end to the war.


NGH

[SHOOTALL]

Like the Gray Ghost said with exception to his mens uniforms sent from Richmond all his supplies were furnished by raids in the North. I think I would not set dates but go at will , if all at one time troops may not move but if you can run them around you wear out both men and equiptment. Rail roads would be a top target as would military products . Also destruction of ships.
 The Southern generals were about keeping the past alive shame they did not fight as they had in the French and Indian war or revl. war . Maybe they worried about their smelling good and frilley uniforms who knows

[Swampman]

Man had a hand in it , some books were ignored as we are finding out . And we were warned to be aware of false churches were we not ?

They are all false.

[SHOOTALL]

no there is one true church

[williamlayton]

There is no doubt that the war might have gone better for the South---I am not convinced that they could have won---we will never know.
The problems come to a head when when you start talking about numbers.
Blessings

[Ga.windbreak]

I will respectfully remind everyone WL's thread is about a what if concerning the South, not a debate concerning the Bible or Christianity. There is a proper forum to debate that and it is not here.

So lets return to WL's subject, shall we!

[subdjoe]

At first bull run they could have followed retreating northern troops back into washington as it was unprotected . Lincoln would not have had time to build troop strength and lost support most likely as many in the north didn't care for the war in the first place.

I agree entirely.  Washington DC was low hanging fruit that was ripe for the picking.  I can not believe that the southern commanders couldn't see that and capitalize upon it immediately.

But the South did not see itself as the aggressive side.  The deep south just wanted to leave.  The upper south wanted the deep south to be allowed to leave and only seceeded when Lincoln made it clear he was going to march an army through the upper south.   Invading Washington City didn't interest the south, they just wanted to keep the invading hoards out.

[SHOOTALL]

subdjoe , Once again mankind is forced to realize that war is total . To try and not wage total war is to insure you will fight again later and incure even more loss . We last waged total war on Germany and Japan and they have not been a problem now have they ?

[no guns here]

Right, the south saw it's role as "we don't want to overrun the north, we just want them to leave us alone and let us be".  They thought they could fight there way to this position.  Trying to wage war against a larger, more heavily armed, better supplied enemy should have made them think of a better way to do business.  Of course we now know that the way to get an agressor out is not necessarily to defeat them on the battlefield but to defeat them in their homes, families and minds.  Continuing to wage a war of attrition and expecting miracles with a dwindling supply of cannon, ammunition, supplies and men is folly.  Waging a war against the enemy with the intent of forcing the people to demand an end to their involvement in the war works wonders though.  If the south wanted solely to secede, they didn't need to defeat the north on the battefield.  The north NEEDED to defeat the south on the battlefield.  In order to successfully secede, the south needed to merely capture or kill the leadership of the north.  This could have been fairly easily accomplished after Bull Run I.  Failing this, the south needed to force a withdrawal of large portions of the Union army.  Guerilla tactis in the north would have accomplished this.

Basically the military doctrine of the day demanded that the enemy be defeated in battle in order to impose your will on the enemy.  What they really should have looked for was "What has to happen in order for the government to allow us to secede?"  Making the north suffer hunger and deprivation would have increased the likelyhood of that occuring.


NGH

[Brewster]

Terrorism?  Might have brought the Union to the table in 1861, but by the time Shilo was fought...just retribution that would have dwarfed Sherman.

[subdjoe]

subdjoe , Once again mankind is forced to realize that war is total . To try and not wage total war is to insure you will fight again later and incure even more loss . We last waged total war on Germany and Japan and they have not been a problem now have they ?

Yeah, that is how you fight against an aggressor who wants territory and power, and to take over your nation.  But the CSA was not trying to take over all the US.  It didn't give a damn about New England or Ohio, or Iowa. 

The South didn't want the fight!  If the South had wanted a war, why not start in in Feb. 1861 when ....FL?...the last of the 7 deep south states to pass a bill of secession left?  If the South wanted a war, why did it not declare one?  Those seven states just wanted to withdraw from the Union.
First Manassas was the South saying "Look, we will fight you if we have to, but we really just want to be left alone."  The bigger bully threatened the South, the South hit the bully in an attempt to get it to back off.  But, unlike in a one one on one fight with a bully, standing up and punching him in the nose didn't work.  The bully just kept coming. 

[P.A. Myers]

Slavery was already dying a natural death. Slaves had gotten very expensive. Share cropping and convict labor were keeping plantations afloat. Don't discount the religious revivals of the mid 19th century as a force to abandon human chattel. Thomas Johnathon Jackson taught slave children to read the bible during a sunday school class that he taught before the war. It was illegal to do that in Virginia.

If the Confederacy was determined to win at any cost, they could have gone biological. The actual mechanism of contaigon was not fully understood, but the effects of it were. During the middle ages in europe, they would fling a plague corpse over the walls. Some strategicaly placed infections could have ruined the large northern cities. The standing armies would have fared no better. A little bit of small pox, diptheria, typhoid, bubonic plague goes a long way.

It worked on the indians, 400 years prior.

[williamlayton]

I don't disagree that slavery was dying but I do disagree on two points.
1) There were elements in the South---and they were the firebrands---that not only wanted to keep slavery alive but also wanted the South (the Confederacy to expand its territory.
There were elements of British agents here for that very purpose.
As to who was the aggressor. Depends on your point of view bu it is totally absurd for the South to ever believe that they would be allowed to walk away and then compete for additional control of Western land.
It is with rose colored glasses that the South thought itself to be such a gallant and oppressed nation.
Most of the studies suggest that the South was controlled by a rich minority that was intent on using the propaganda of the times to maintain their status and expand their wealth.
Shermans letters and memoirs leave no question in his mind that South Carolina was the culprit, and he was not alone in this thought and Sam Houston said as much when he resigned from office.
Now that part of history aside---let's return to the subject.
If you were Lee, what would you have done.
Blessings

[subdjoe]

Heck, there were a few times that New England said it would just walk away.  There didn't seem to be a problem with that, even though it likely would have given the Brits a better shot at invading from the north. 

The difference?  NE was dirt poor and was a drain on federal coffers, as opposed to being the cash cow that the south was. 

[williamlayton]

How do you see that the NE was dirt poor?
Blessings

[Swampman]

The difference?  NE was dirt poor and was a drain on federal coffers, as opposed to being the cash cow that the south was.

Again I'm at a loss to respond to this.

[Gary G]

Let's suppose another strategy. Suppose Davis had ordered Ft. Sumter not to be fired upon. Lincoln would have sent in the bread ship and without it being fired on, the other 5 or 6 ships that followed carrying troops would have entered the harbor. Charleston would have been overrun. The majority of the North did not want war. Many had said "let them go". It was mostly just the radical republicans and the industrialist that saw detriment to their beloved tariff. Most people, including other countries, would have seen this as an unjustified invasion. Without the shot being fired, Lincoln would have had a hard time calling for troops.
Would Lincoln have succumbed to the public outcries which undoubtedly would have happened? Remember he was not very popular at this time. Would the south have won the political battle? Would England and France have put an embargo on the North until invading troops were removed?

___________________________________________________________________________
On another subject that has been brought up: would slavery have ended?
Slavery is not an economical venture. It is much like socialism. Why work hard when you get the same pay by doing less work than someone else? Of course slaves got no pay, but the principle is the same. The cost factor of shelter and food is high for the output of work done. Someone that said mechanization would have ended it was right. A machine once purchased has very little overhead. Slavery was already on the decline for these reasons by then.

[williamlayton]

What it was was Coup. Coup's rarely go unchallenged and it was fairly recognised by even England, who had a great stake in the success of the South, that it was best to stay out of this. They did not do so entirely and it almost brought war with England.
But this is slowly going off target.
What means did the South have at its disposal to win this war?
HINT: Great Britian.
Blessings

[Cabin4]

One of the key reasons the Union invaded the Confederacy was for money.

[Swampman]

The North had nearly all the money.  In fact they had all of the everything.

[Cabin4]

I said they invaded for money. I did not say how much money thay had nor did I compare thier levels of money.

[Swampman]

The North invaded the South to quell the rebellion.  They had no choice.