What, in your opinion, could the South

[williamlayton]

have done differently to have won the war?
This is truely a hindsight, Monday morning quarterbacking thing.
Blessings

[PowPow]

Go on the offensive early, rather than try to fight a defensive war. Attack and capture Washington DC, then sue for peace.
(WL - You need to modify your post. "What" is not capitalized. I almost missed this thread )

[mcwoodduck]

Change tactics for one and use their superior shooting ability to their advantage to buy time to feild a large army for a big short war.
Use more hit and run raids on towns north of Maryland.  Head for Philly, and a right and left hook for DC adn NYC.   Entering the North would have made more people stay home to protect harth and home.
 Get England to supply the army with rifles and the use of the English navy to break the Union Navy's blockade.  this would allow goods out to obtain more $ for raw materials that were needed for the war effort.
The Civil war was the first industrial war.  And a war of attrition.  And once the war went on.  There really was no way for the South to prevail with out the raw materials to feed the industries they had let alone build the ones they needed.
The North had more of everything.  The North lost 50% more men in battle.
but with a stronger Navy, the industrial plants cranking out firearms, cannons, gear, and food the South really did not have the ability to last as long in the field.
The South was better lead.  But with having to keep troops in the south for fear of the Union Navy landing troops in the south behind the lines as well as being worried about union troops arming the freed slaves an setting them to run amuck as well  wanting to protect harth and home.

[Swampman]

Let the slaves fight......Robert E. Lee and Patrick Cleburne knew this.

The western Yankees had every bit as much pluck and shooting skills as we did.  The Yankees were good soldiers and good men.

Old wives tales aside Southern soldiers were well fed and well equipped.  Unfortunately they were outnumbered about 10 to 1.

[subdjoe]

Pretty much nothing.  Maybe followed up the Federal rout at First Manassas by chasing the Federal troops and taking Washington City.  But since the South was not intent on invading, they seem to not have considered it. 

Once it was clear that First Manassas did not break Lincolns lust for war, the South had lost.  The greater population and manufacturing capability of the northern states made it inevitable. 

ADDED - Possibly if they had abolished, or started the abolition of, slavery right at the start of the War, they could have brought England and France in as allies. That support might have balanced the northern advantage in material.

[Swampman]

And that's a good thing because none of us would be here today if he hadn't.

[subdjoe]

i hate to say this but they should have killed lincoln.

it was his determination to keep the union together that kept the war going.

his determination outlasted southern manpower and resources.

Umm....no.  That would have just enraged the north earlier.  Bad enough when it did happen, but say it had been done in '62, before Lee surrendered, I think that the full industrial might would have been brought to bear, and what the north would have done would have made the sack of Carthage look tame.

[subdjoe]

And that's a good thing because none of us would be here today if he hadn't.

Interesting claim. How do you know that none of us would be here?  All these assumptions that if those seven states of the Deep South had been allowed to go all the rest of the Union would have dissolved into something akin to the germanic states/principalities or the Balkans, and from coast to coast would be a vast wasteland. 

What would have changed?  The fed would have had to come up with a different source of revenue to keep the northern financial interests happy.  There would have had to be new trade agreements with the new nation of the Confederacy.  What else?  My guess is that somehow the Union would have figured some way to get all blacks out of its territory and enacted laws against allowing them to enter (there were already a number of "free states" with such laws).  But the industry would still have been in the north, a lot of the agriculture.  Likely expansion would have continued across the continent, since the west coast was federal territory.  All that would have been lacking was the cotton, tobacco, and rice lands, and a few ports. 

[subdjoe]

interesting to speculate. 

andrew johnson would have become president.
from tenn but a stauch unionist.  the only legislator from the south who
stayed loyal to the union. hated slave owners.  was a hard liners against the south
but learned tolerance from lincoln's policies and followed thru on leniancy
until he was impeached.

we'll never know.

I don't think he would have been able to contain the rage of the people. 

[Swampman]

Due to the war, millions of people met and had children that never would have met had the war not taken place.  Millions died that would have had children.  It's unlikely any of us would exist had the war not taken place.  When it comes to African Americans the likelyhood is that none of them would exist anywhere had it not been for slavery.  Their parents never would have met, and even if they had they were not allowed to marry outside their tribe.

Genetics is complicated....

[williamlayton]

The statement about Lincoln's assignation is an interesting  and after.
We formed groups in one class to have this discussion about what if he was assinated before the war was really under way.
Of course there is no way to validate any of the proposals.
One indication is the war would have become far more brutal and reconstruction may never have happened. Southerners becoming completely disenfranchised for a generation.
Blessings 

[SHOOTALL]

have done differently to have won the war?
This is truely a hindsight, Monday morning quarterbacking thing.
Blessings

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.

[Ruskin]

Avoid the charge at Gettysburg.

losing Stonewall hurt also.  Same time frame.

Going into Washington while they were in a disarry before the troops arrived.

[subdjoe]

Due to the war, millions of people met and had children that never would have met had the war not taken place.  Millions died that would have had children.  It's unlikely any of us would exist had the war not taken place.  When it comes to African Americans the likelyhood is that none of them would exist anywhere had it not been for slavery.  Their parents never would have met, and even if they had they were not allowed to marry outside their tribe.

Genetics is complicated....

Do the geometric progression, 625,000 soldiers and 1,250,000 civilian deaths.  Let;s call it a half million couples who never had kids.  Let's see...half million, call it 4 kids each.  that's two million.  and takes us to, oh, 1885 when those two million start having their 4 kids each, so 8 million Now those 8 million give rise to 32 million, and so on.

So, maybe specific individuals would not have come into being, but the chances that none of us would be around are kind of slim.  And like as not there would be more of us all told.

Interesting, though.  Are you now saying that slavery was a good thing for Blacks in America? 

[PowPow]

If Swampman700 said that slavery was a good thing for Blacks in America, maybe he could say it himself, perhaps more straight forwardly, because I did not even remotely get that out of his post.

I understood his post to say that a paricular event (the war) led to a particular outcome (your existence), and that under other circumstances (no war) none of us exist, but someone else does.

[Ga.windbreak]

Due to the war, millions of people met and had children that never would have met had the war not taken place.  Millions died that would have had children.  It's unlikely any of us would exist had the war not taken place.  When it comes to African Americans the likelyhood is that none of them would exist anywhere had it not been for slavery.  Their parents never would have met, and even if they had they were not allowed to marry outside their tribe.

Genetics is complicated....

Do the geometric progression, 625,000 soldiers and 1,250,000 civilian deaths.  Let;s call it a half million couples who never had kids.  Let's see...half million, call it 4 kids each.  that's two million.  and takes us to, oh, 1885 when those two million start having their 4 kids each, so 8 million Now those 8 million give rise to 32 million, and so on.

So, maybe specific individuals would not have come into being, but the chances that none of us would be around are kind of slim.  And like as not there would be more of us all told.

Interesting, though.  Are you now saying that slavery was a good thing for Blacks in America?

Can't wait to see the answer to that one!

[williamlayton]

GW.
It depends on how one approaches the subject--wheather devinely leveraged or an act of free will.
Free will always seems to come into line with devine purpose---strange as it amy seem.
It will work to the good, we know that and it has for alot of black folks.
It can be argued that it also has worked to the bad for others.
Good discussion though.
Blessings

[mcwoodduck]

And that's a good thing because none of us would be here today if he hadn't.

Interesting claim. How do you know that none of us would be here?  All these assumptions that if those seven states of the Deep South had been allowed to go all the rest of the Union would have dissolved into something akin to the germanic states/principalities or the Balkans, and from coast to coast would be a vast wasteland. 

What would have changed?  The fed would have had to come up with a different source of revenue to keep the northern financial interests happy.  There would have had to be new trade agreements with the new nation of the Confederacy.  What else?  My guess is that somehow the Union would have figured some way to get all blacks out of its territory and enacted laws against allowing them to enter (there were already a number of "free states" with such laws).  But the industry would still have been in the north, a lot of the agriculture.  Likely expansion would have continued across the continent, since the west coast was federal territory.  All that would have been lacking was the cotton, tobacco, and rice lands, and a few ports.

I think it is a fair claim.
Before the revolution and the founding of the country Canada was mostly owned by the English and making a new country that stopped the free flow of goods and people from one to the other over time.
A seperate Southern Nation after a bitter Civil war would have caused many problems with movement of the population.
I am sure I would not be here.  My fathers family is from the North and Mom was a Texan.  He fater took a job for General Dynamics and moved to NY where Mom met Dad and I was made.
Also beggs the questions of what would world history have been?  Spanish American War have happened?  Would we have had a second Civil war if the two Americas were on opposite sides in either of the World Wars?

[subdjoe]

But if there had been no Lincolns War, and those seven states had been allowed to leave peacefully - which they wanted to do, there may not have been any restriction of trade or flow of goods. 

[Swampman]

Do the geometric progression, 625,000 soldiers and 1,250,000 civilian deaths.  Let;s call it a half million couples who never had kids.  Let's see...half million, call it 4 kids each.  that's two million.  and takes us to, oh, 1885 when those two million start having their 4 kids each, so 8 million Now those 8 million give rise to 32 million, and so on.

So, maybe specific individuals would not have come into being, but the chances that none of us would be around are kind of slim.  And like as not there would be more of us all told.

Interesting, though.  Are you now saying that slavery was a good thing for Blacks in America?

It's much more complicated than this.  Millons of people met (and had sex/babies) that would never have met.

I guess it depends on how you define a "good thing" if existing at all is a good thing, or not existing at all is a bad thing then.....

I suppose current living conditions in Africa as compared to the US would have to be considerded.  If it weren't for slavery I wouldn't have my daughter-in-law or grandchildren.

[Ga.windbreak]

If those 7 states had been allowed to leave without a war.
1. The other 5 would have never left.

2. As it did during the conflict the US government found ways to operate without the resources of those 12 states it would certainly have survived without just 7.

3. Slavery died in the remaining union slave states without a war so sooner or later slavery would have died no matter what!

4. The US and also the CSA proved that a Confederation just does not work long term. Thus my personal feeling is that within less time than the war and reconstruction took place (12 years) those 7 states would have come begging at the door to be let back into the Union. My personal guess is about 6 years.

War is NEVER the answer to a problem between states if we are a government of LAWS.

Therefore Lincoln should have been patient

[Ga.windbreak]

Go on the offensive early, rather than try to fight a defensive war. Attack and capture Washington DC, then sue for peace.
(WL - You need to modify your post. "What" is not capitalized. I almost missed this thread )

Thank you, I took care of it for him.

[Swampman]

Lincoln was patient, very patient.

[williamlayton]

GW
As much as you may want to think that slavery would have died, I just can't believe that.
You may be right---but there is an awful lot of History which indicates the opposite.
It was a God awful thing to have to deal with and we did it very poorly.
B;essings

[Ga.windbreak]

GW
As much as you may want to think that slavery would have died, I just can't believe that.
You may be right---but there is an awful lot of History which indicates the opposite.
It was a God awful thing to have to deal with and we did it very poorly.
B;essings

While much of what you say is true, it was hard to deal with, history shows that both Washington and Jackson dealt with rogue states without firing a shot as well as showing that no other country in the world fought a war over slavery to end it!

Proving, invho, Lincoln was both ignorant of his options, stubborn, and not patient at all.

BTW I give no pass to those leaders on the Southern side Toomes of Ga. was, without a doubt, one of the worst and most stupid!

[Ruskin]

Technology would have killed slavery-tractor and other farm labor saving devices.  A natural death.

[yellowtail3]

have done differently to have won the war?
This is truely a hindsight, Monday morning quarterbacking thing.
Blessings

Confederacy vs US... I think was kind of like Japan going to was with US. The only way US was going to lose was if they weren't willing to fully mobilize and win.

[williamlayton]

Technology would have surely killed slavery.
I am not sure that anyone---anywhere could see the vision of this technology at the time we are discussing.
The country put itsownself into this misery. WE --- not just the South handeled it about as poorly as could possibly be done.
That said it is over and done with---well---we will still be dealing with it for at least another generation. You young'un figger it out, We made a mess of it.
Blessings

[williamlayton]

I have an opinion about this thing called how the South could have won.
I look to history for the answers.
Everybody that is not patient looses wars. The Germans are a recent example, but there are earlier examples.
IF, the South had boded time---not been so hot headed---and formulated a plan of attack--secretly. In other words, got their priorities in order they may have had one chance to seize the day. It could not be a protracted war.
The South was incredibly naive--living in an age that had passed by.
The North could not logistically allow the South to walk away---it is most amazing that they even considered this opinion as logical.
Blessings

[SHOOTALL]

I guess it depends on how you define a "good thing" if existing at all is a good thing, or not existing at all is a bad thing then.....

I suppose current living conditions in Africa as compared to the US would have to be considerded.  If it weren't for slavery I wouldn't have my daughter-in-law or grandchildren.

Sorry but this ansewer reeks of the attitude that "I" know better what is good for you than you do. A very elitest attitude really.
For one thing if the Arabs and Dutch had not been a market for slaves how do we know what Africa would be today ? We don't even know What America would have been with out slaves .
 Slavery is abuse in any form . Of all the things I do not understand in this world why the eleventh commandment was not their shall have no slaves is a mystery to me.