should the south have fought a more offensive war

[williamlayton]

The point of the whole thought was to get the idea across that the war was illconceived by the south from the start.
Even if Geetysburg had fallen on Lee's sword, this would not have won the war for the South. Lee had neither the troops or supplies for a terminal advance into the North.
Some folks say that the war turned at Gettysburg and I do also but not just because of the victory. I think the invasion put some fire in the belly of the North.
Blessings

[no guns here]

I agree with you... the south could have probably forced a different conclusion to the war by fighting in a different style.  More offense right at the beginning when they had manpower, equipment and momentum.  A direct assault on DC.  Much more guerilla action far into the north.  Scorched earth/total war policy like Sherman did later.  All that would have helped.
 
 
I firmly believe that large scale use of small unit guerilla tactics far in the north at the beginning of the war would have changed everything.  The north would have been forced to keep more men in the north, would have had less resources to devote to the fight and would have alarmed and disoriented the public in the north hopefully to the degree of demanding an end to hostilities.  I also believe that at 1st Bull Run they could have ravaged across NoVa and into DC.  Might have gotten lucky and forced a surrender or a concession to secession.
 
 
NGH

[1911crazy]

On the history channel which i'm not sure wether to believe it or not said that General LEE went into the last big battle without getting any knowledge of the size of the troops he was going up against.  It actually cost the south the war and LEE knew that.  Lee should of been more tactical in planning and had more information on how big the ememy troops really were.
 
If the south won the civil war would we be a different country today??  How, in what way?
 
This is truely a black eye in the american history for sure.  This war was like a mother eating its young by americans killing americans.

[SHOOTALL]

Lee made a blunder at Gettysburg. He commited a blunder by attacking up hill. He had held the high ground at Fredricksburg Va. and was full aware of what was/would happen. Had he marched south around the union forces toward Washington DC he would have pulled the yankees off high ground and most likely defeated them. The South also could have gone into Washington after 1st Bull Run.
As for fighting a more offensive war not sure the South had the wealth or materials and transportation to do so.
 
I have read that as the South attacked ( Pickett's charge) the yankees were yelling "Fredicksburg"

[williamlayton]

Historically most agree that Vicksburg was the undoing of the South---Gettysburg being the Coup.
The concerns about guerrilla warfare is that while t could prolong the war, it could not win the war. It may have brought about a change of mind in the North and they may have gotten fed up with the whole mess and told the South to just go away---maybe! This would have taken awhile though and the war was not at a standstill.
Also, it may have galvanized the North into a position of real unity--with one goal.
We will never know, but, I don't think that this guerilla warfare could have lasted long enough to have accomplished its goal.
Blessings 

[jackruff]

Historically most agree that Vicksburg was the undoing of the South---Gettysburg being the Coup.
The concerns about guerrilla warfare is that while t could prolong the war, it could not win the war. It may have brought about a change of mind in the North and they may have gotten fed up with the whole mess and told the South to just go away---maybe! This would have taken awhile though and the war was not at a standstill.
Also, it may have galvanized the North into a position of real unity--with one goal.
We will never know, but, I don't think that this guerilla warfare could have lasted long enough to have accomplished its goal.
Blessings

The war was effectively over when Vicksburg surrendered.  I've always thought the South made a tactical blunder when they moved the capital from Montgomery to Richmond.  The lower tier of Confederate states could have been defended effectively, and the North likely would have cared little if they had remained separate.  Way too much attention was paid to Virginia.  It seems that Virginia was all Lee really cared about.

[williamlayton]

I agree to a point.
Lots of good thought here.
Blessings

[SHOOTALL]

Had the South captured Washington the war would have beed over .

[1911crazy]

Will the south rise again???
 
I heard there is still money stashed away for this war if it happens all over again.

[AtlLaw]

Will the south rise again???
 
I heard there is still money stashed away for this war if it happens all over again.

Huh!?     What!?       Somebody need change?   

[SHOOTALL]

Will the south rise again???
 
I heard there is still money stashed away for this war if it happens all over again.

yea its all over , paper money    you can buy it with yankee dollars at most road side tourist traps   

[windywales]

When the contest is between unity and separatism, unity will win every time.  If the south had fought for union, and the north for something as ephemeral as "states' rights", the south would have won.  If the north had been in favor of slavery, and the south against it, there would have been a more total commitment on the south's part, and they would have won.  Had it been the northern officers that had to renege on their oath of allegiance to their country, more of the best ones would have fought for the south--and who cares about those less than the best?
Right prevailed.  Thank God.
windy

[SHOOTALL]

The best did fight for the South  ,how many generals did the north go thru before finding one who would fight ? The South lost in part , maybe the biggest part because they had little industry to build cannon, rifles , powder , shot or other supplies. Had the North had a good general and backing by the population in the north the South should not have lasted a year.

[ironglow]

  Although the south's rising took a grteat deal of pluck and courage, it was doomed from the start (IMO).  Although as individual soldiers they performed very well, the south just did not have the manpower and resources to carry and maintain the offensive or occupation, were they successful in any major way.
   As William said, the real high-water mark for the Confederacy was turned by one small unit (20th Maine) and more appropriately, by one single commander.. Joshua Chamberlain.
  The north ridiculously underrated the Confederacy at Manassas..but that was doomed to be a temporary setback at best.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
  One of the least advisable things a commander can do, is to "put the vanquished to the sword" ..brutalize prisoners or " allow no quarter" !
  I am more a student of the Revolutionary war..we found this was done by the British Maj General Chas Grey at the battle of Paoli, in Pennsylvania..he "put the continentals to the bayonet"...  Later called "the Paoli Massacre" it infuriated General "Mad" Anthony Wayne's men to vow "no quarter" for any Brits they had conquered. That act of brutality cost the British much more than their single act of brutality gained them.
   Right in the Carolinas, the British commander Banastare Tarleton was infamous for "offering no quarter" to prisoners.   Soon this deteriorated to the American war cry.."give them Tarleton's quarter"...   Many a decent British soldier died unnecessarily, due to Tarleton's stupidity.
      A century later Crazy Horse defeated, tortured & slew, every last man in Custer's command.  A  hollow victory; payback was a b---h !
  Even more recently; The Empire of Japan had a great sneak-attack victory at Pearl Harbor;  but their own Admiral Yamato said he feared they had.. "only wakened a sleeping giant..and filled him with a terrible resolve"...
    I believe any "put them to the sword" command,  would have made the whole war into one huge, "Sherman's March" ..or worse..
 
   One thing we learn from history...is that sometimes we don't learn from history" !!

[windywales]

So many of the best--on both sides--didn't affect the war as much as they might have.  Albert Sidney Johnston's death changed the war in the west immeasurably.  John Reynolds would have ended it at Gettysburg if he'd accepted the position Meade wound up with.  One stray bullet at Fredericksburg could have ended Joshua Chamberlain's war and changed Gettysburg.  A bunch of triggerhappy reb pickets at Chancelorsville kept Lee from having his best corps commander, Jackson, at Gettysburg.  Lee was shot at, by his own troops, how many times, and missed; Longstreet was gravely wounded by his own--guess you could say that southern riflemen almost won the war their politicians lost, and lost the war their generals could have won!
Or maybe God took a hand in it, gave everbody a chance to take their best shot--and then decided the outcome on His own!
mind yer topknots!
windy

[ironglow]

The best did fight for the South  ,how many generals did the north go thru before finding one who would fight ? The South lost in part , maybe the biggest part because they had little industry to build cannon, rifles , powder , shot or other supplies. Had the North had a good general and backing by the population in the north the South should not have lasted a year.

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
  In some ways I take exception here.  Although there is little doubt the finest general-of-the-army was Gen R E Lee, other things were divided..  I believe most admit that at the outset, the south had much the better cavalry.  Conversly, the north was one-up on artillery, both in equipment and skill. Frankly, that is why it is so puzzling that Lee did not immediately seize the high ground at Gettysburg..... I understand that Big and Little Roundtops were not yet invested upon his arrival.
  Then too, in defense of Lee, wasn't Longstreet guilty of hesitancy in following Lee's orders to take the elevations ?
    More questions than answers here, I fear..

[SHOOTALL]

I was talking the entire war not just GB.

[gstewart44]

We will never know, but, I don't think that this guerilla warfare could have lasted long enough to have accomplished its goal.
Blessings

had the war turned into a guerrilla campaign by the south I think we would have seen what the British did to the Boers 30 years later in South Africa...... while the South and the Boers initially had success in "stinging" the other side,  both the Brits and the North had the troops and materiel to encircle, cut off supplies and starve out their opponents in a long war of attrition with ghastly civilian effects.   The South could not have waged a continuous guerrilla war with its desired outcome.   

[SHOOTALL]

The Britts didn't elect a president every four years . Keep in mind many in the north were opposed to the war. I think politicaly speaking America tires of guerilla war and pulls out even when the military is winning hands down.

[Jack Ripper]

The one product economy and slavery ensured the doom of  the southern way of life even before the start of the Civil War.

[gstewart44]

The Britts didn't elect a president every four years . Keep in mind many in the north were opposed to the war. I think politicaly speaking America tires of guerilla war and pulls out even when the military is winning hands down.

Yes Shootall, I agree that America tires of guerilla war, when we go to other countries and try to wage that type of war outside our boundaries.     I think in this scenario of thread would be far different.....a few posts back alluded to the South taking a guerilla campaign into the North.    I think this would only strengthen the resolve of the Northern states to do whatever necessary to eliminate their enemy.      Look only at Pearl Harbour and 9-11 to see the reaction of Americans when our own soil is bloodied from an antagonist.   The resolve is always strong.   the difference is that against Japan we fought total war,   in Afghanistan and Iraq the politicians are once again tying the hands of our brave men and women to get the job done.   
Back to the OP,  I believe that a Southern campaign of guerrilla war into the North would have unleashed a response like Sherman on Steroids along with a blockade.   Total war, much sooner. 

[SHOOTALL]

Had the South stayed in the South I think the North would have tired . I do agree that going North was a very bad Idea.

[sidewinder319]

I am not a student of the Civil War. If my question is stupid just ignore.  If the South could have won the War to protect their rights what then?  That means Human Bondage or slavery would have continued? The South would  have been able to keep slave markets? Would we have slaves to this day?  If not how and when would this have ended?  I notice all manner of ways to stop the North from freeing people from Bondage?  How would it have ended other wise?

[subdjoe]

I am not a student of the Civil War. If my question is stupid just ignore.  If the South could have won the War to protect their rights what then?  That means Human Bondage or slavery would have continued? The South would  have been able to keep slave markets? Would we have slaves to this day?  If not how and when would this have ended?  I notice all manner of ways to stop the North from freeing people from Bondage?  How would it have ended other wise?

Likely slavery would have died from economic and social pressures before 1900, possibly closer to 1880.  Southern leaders could see that the time for slavery in N. America was coming to an end. Jeff Davis said "The slave must be made fit for his freedom by education and discipline and thus be made unfit for slavery." People knew it was coming, and there were many proposals on how to do that, without tearing society apart.  Read through the Slave Narratives and you will find comments by former slaves who , in the 1930s  were still upset that the North just told them 'You're free.  Now get out of here."  With no training on how to be free.Several saying that there should have been whites set over them to teach them, not just kick them out to 'root hog, or die.'  The former owners could barely feed themselves and their families, so they couldn't support the Freedmen and their families.

Given the racism in the north, a Southern victory would likely have set off pogroms against the relatively small number of blacks in the north.  What, about a half million blacks in a total population of about 22 million?  Remember the NY riots?  Because of the change from "Save the Union" to 'Free the Slaves!" part way though, blacks would have been blamed for the loss. Dig into existing letters and diaries by Union soldiers and you see a lot of that kind of thinking.

Remember also that at least as late as 1860 there were still slave ships being outfitted and provisioned in New England, New York, and Rhode Island, taking on trade goods made in northern factories, sailing to Africa, trading goods for people, and then to S. America and the Caribbean to sell that human cargo.

So, slave trade continued by the business men of the northern states, even though it was illegal.  Slavery likely gone by natural causes, as happened in every other western Christian country, and without the disruption and destruction of a war. 

[sidewinder319]

Subjoe-Thanks so much for a very logical explanation of the slave  issue.  You have a very solid command of Civil War history. Thanks so much for your help in understating this complex history.

[williamlayton]

I have been thinking about what I said concerning this guerrilla warfare.
I said it could not have lasted long enough to make a difference.
In fact the South did resort to this type of warfare and it did make a difference for 100 years. this would also say that, in the South more than in the North--but not completely in the South--this warfare did halt progress towards equality for 100 years.
NOW--I won't get into a fight about this subject. It is over to some point. This is my opinion and if you don't agree that is OK.
Blessings

[jackruff]

I am not a student of the Civil War. If my question is stupid just ignore.  If the South could have won the War to protect their rights what then?  That means Human Bondage or slavery would have continued? The South would  have been able to keep slave markets? Would we have slaves to this day?  If not how and when would this have ended?  I notice all manner of ways to stop the North from freeing people from Bondage?  How would it have ended other wise?

Likely slavery would have died from economic and social pressures before 1900, possibly closer to 1880.  Southern leaders could see that the time for slavery in N. America was coming to an end. Jeff Davis said "The slave must be made fit for his freedom by education and discipline and thus be made unfit for slavery." People knew it was coming, and there were many proposals on how to do that, without tearing society apart.  Read through the Slave Narratives and you will find comments by former slaves who , in the 1930s  were still upset that the North just told them 'You're free.  Now get out of here."  With no training on how to be free.Several saying that there should have been whites set over them to teach them, not just kick them out to 'root hog, or die.'  The former owners could barely feed themselves and their families, so they couldn't support the Freedmen and their families.

Given the racism in the north, a Southern victory would likely have set off pogroms against the relatively small number of blacks in the north.  What, about a half million blacks in a total population of about 22 million?  Remember the NY riots?  Because of the change from "Save the Union" to 'Free the Slaves!" part way though, blacks would have been blamed for the loss. Dig into existing letters and diaries by Union soldiers and you see a lot of that kind of thinking.

Remember also that at least as late as 1860 there were still slave ships being outfitted and provisioned in New England, New York, and Rhode Island, taking on trade goods made in northern factories, sailing to Africa, trading goods for people, and then to S. America and the Caribbean to sell that human cargo.

So, slave trade continued by the business men of the northern states, even though it was illegal.  Slavery likely gone by natural causes, as happened in every other western Christian country, and without the disruption and destruction of a war.

I agree.  I've always thought that slavery would have been gone within a few years in the South even if the South had won the war. 

[ronbow]

First of all I am a Southerner. However in hindsight (which is what we are talking here), I would have fought to preserve the union which means I would have fought for the North. I live in North Fla. and have all of my life. I am as Southern as they come but also first  an American.
If the south had fought a defensive war, the outcome MAY hav been somewhat different but not necesarily a Southern victory. Lincoln did what was necessary given the times to save the union.
I fought in an "unpopular" war which time has proven to be successful in the fight against Communism. The civil war has also proven over time to have had the right outcome.

[jackruff]

It must have been very difficult for many Americans in the South to decide where their loyalty lay.  I'm still puzzled over one of my great-grandfathers, a native of Ohio who came to Mississippi while a teenager.  He joined up at the outset (First Mississippi Infantry) and fought for the Confederacy all the way until finally wounded, captured, and imprisoned (in Ohio) in November, 1864.  But it was also very difficult for Americans during the Revolution.  A large number of them did remain loyal to Great Britain.  The American Revolution was really more of a "civil" war than was the War Between the States.

[ironglow]

Jackruff;
   Both the Revolution and the Civil War were very divisive of Americans (technically English, during the Revolution).
  The large difference being that during the later conflict, the division, with a few exceptions was divided at the Mason/Dixon line.  The division during the earlier conflict was  hill to hill, town to town and even house to house..  Very difficult and treacherous to sort out.
   Even Ben Franklin disagreed with his illegitimate, Tory son, William..who was the royal governor of New Jersey. After the war, Ben never saw his son again.  Ben even left him out of his will , saying that if William's England had won, he would have had nothing to leave anyway.