Possibly the South’s best bet (maybe only bet) would be to send assassins to take out Lincoln himself.
I don’t think so. We’ll never know of course, but I think this would have galvanized people in the North to win the war at all costs.
Some specific act like that can get a heterogeneous population to all agree on a similar goal. Beating the south for assassinating their leader (whether Lincoln was their personal choice or not) would have probably made the resolve of the north much stronger.
Though it would have been advantageous for the Confederacy to fight a more defensive war, the Confederacy was doomed to fail from the beginning. The Confederacy lacked the ability to trade with foreign nations along with the Anaconda Plan so it had to find other ways to create sustainable cash flow which really it couldn’t produce. It also had a much smaller population. The Union on the other hand had a bountiful amount of cash flow to fight a war along with a much larger population. The only thing that truly made the Civil War last so long was the fact that the Union had weak generals compared to Robert E. Lee and ‘Stonewall’ Jackson.
OK, various things here:
Purely ont he defrensive, the South would have been ground down. Possibly it would have taken longer, but remember that they usually were on the defensive anyway, and the Union won in the west anyway. The Eastern battles were ultimately a sideshow.
The South’s greatest strategist was Johnson or possibly Forrest, not Lee and definitely not Stonewall Jackson. Johnson and Forrest understood that they didn’t have to hold territory, but could trade space for time and wear down the Union, then fight battles on their own terms). The problem with this was not military but political - Southern elites were rather schizo in this era, and there was never much respect for Richmond to begin with. And of course, Jeff Davis and many others could not comprehend the possibility that the South might not win and might be forced to abandon some territory.
But Johnson’s tactics drained the Union army’s time, manpower, and will. He’s often not well respected, but in a great many cases he accurately identified the situation, pointed out the problems and possible solutions, and was roundly ignored. Some of the Confederacy’s decisions made life extremely hard - for example, making their damn capital Richmond and trying to settle in permanently painted a giant target symbol on the city, when they might have been able to use Richmond as a merely a forward base and leave, if neccessary, while wearing down any Union forces.
Finally, Jackson’s supposed strategy was farcical. Southern soldiers moved slower, had poorer intelligence, and made themselves prime targets any time they moved into the North. It was only luck and popor generalship which ever gave them a chance, and the Union had plenty of forces available to stop him. People forget secveral good generals tried this very tactic. They all made bold advances raided some food supplies, captured a garrison or two - and then ran home before they got squished. This “straregy” was nothing more than a plan to raid the southern edge fo the North. (Ironically, these areas had often favored the South pre-war!)
That said, Duxmandi is incorrect. The South wasnot doomed. It actually had a much better shot compared to, say Revolutionary War America. It lost ultimately because there was a lack of will to fight in much fo the South. What is often forgotten is that the Civil War was a test of whether North or South had the stronger will; whose resolve would break first. Yet while the North had sections not overly committed to the war, the South had large regions with no loyalty to the Confederacy. They held purely local loyalties; if their states went to war, they would agree, but held no particular affinity for the Confederate cause. Even by the end fo the war, the Confederacy in theory had vast amounts of manpower available, and no shortage of arms. What it lacked were willing soldiers; desertion was no less deadly to the Confederacy than combat, while whole regions more or less shrugged when put under the Union flag.
With what guns would Lee fight his defensive war? Firing what ammunition? Transported in what wagons, or over what rails? The North had a huge industrial advantage over the South, and the South could only hope to balance that out by raiding Northern supplies. That, or try to buy recognition and support from other countries, but it turned out that cotton wasn’t nearly as king as they thought.
Southern industry did manage to amply supply arms and munitions to the Confederates - raiding was not required after the first year. It wasn’t those relatively compact items they had problesm with. Rather, food and clothing were simply not available with the South’s rough transportation system.
ike was the only american general to pursue a defensive strategy when he settled on fortifying the 38th parallel and giving south korea the 30 years it took for it to become a successful if somewhat corrupt democracy. the american army attacks, and marse lee was, after all, an american general.
Poland and France were fighting a superior enemy but on there own ground in WW2. It didn’t work out so well. What marginal advantage there may be to ‘fighting for their homes’ is largely bunk, and is far outweighed by the facts that fighting on their own ground means they are losing and all of the damage and depredations of war are happening are happening to their own grounds.
Okay, I have to say, that gives me a mental picture of ninja involvement in the Civil War. Which would just have been cool.
What would have been even cooler, would have been if Lincoln had accepted the King of Siam’s offer of war elephants.
There’s also the matter of distance. Britain in America and America in Vietnam were both fighting halfway around the world, with all the associated logistical difficulties. Poland and France, OTOH, were fighting an enemy they shared a border with - just like the Confederacy.
Do you think if the South had held out long enough foreign powers might have assisted in order to resume buying southern exports, notably cotton? Not necessarily with ground troops or weapons but sending naval forces with cargo ships to continue trade, if necessary with force, with the South?
Seems to me a purely defensive war would do wonders for the South’s foreign image.
Again, the South did fight a defensive war, and knew they couldn’t win it. That’s why Lee was trying to attack. In a defensive war (pure one, anyway), their one and only hope was to get a Peace Democrat elected, while handing over the keys to victory to any northern general who cared to take them.
Aside from which, most foreign powers didn’t give two cents for the South. Britain and France were pretty much its only possibly friends, and we already saw they weren’t willing to risk anything to support it. No point starting a naval war with the North for a largely theoretical gain. Moreover, the Union Navy quickly quelled most Southern shipping and locked up the ports so that only special-built blockade runners could move in and out. It didn’t much matter what the South bought abroad; they could move only very limited cargoes.
I disagree.
Gettysburg marked Lee’s 2nd attempt to invade the North in as many years.
If you don’t know the difference between Lee’s Army and the South, or for the matter the reasons why he felt forced to launch an invasion, then there’s not much to say.
Oh, I’m sorry.
Did the Army of Northern Virginia not feature regiments from Georgia, Alabama, and every other state from the Confederacy? We’re they not fighting under the Confederate flag, cause, and government? Was Washington D.C. not the intended target had Lee defeated Meade?
What exactly happened, since you know history better than I? Did Lee think he was still in Virginia and simply keeping the Union at bay?
How can you say he was invading the North purely for defense? Lee absolutely intended to threaten northern cities. In fact, Jefferson Davis had already drafted a letter offering peace in lieu of Lee’s victory at Gettysburg. It was to be sent to Lincoln had Lee won.
And the United States didn’t invade Virginia. It was the Army of the Potomac that did that.
Yes, evidently I do know the history better than you.
Because he had no choice, or rather, because his choice was to do nothing, send reinforcements to Vickburg, and pray - or attack. He couldn’t defend, because he would simply have been ground down. It was in fact an offensive stance which gave the CSA its biggest victories and extended the war past McClellan’s Penninsular campaign. Lee could barely feed his own men, and he desperately needed supplies, and time for farmers to bring in the desperately-needed harvest. He could not just simply sit tight. For all his occaisional strategic blindness, he correctly understood that he must have the offensive.
Given that you don’t understand the difference between the tactical and the strategic, there’s isn’t much to say. The Confederacy had a defensive strategy. Offensive campaigns or battles were sometimes part of that. But it was the slow-burn failure of that strategy which forced Gettysburg. The Confederacy knew that barring a miracle, they had to attack. Their stategic defensive had lost them a huge portion of their territory and dealt the most crushing blows to the cause, leaving them with few choices. But that defensive strategy was exactly that erratic fomulation of Davis, Lee, and the two Johnsons.
Please re-read OP’s post, specifically point 1 and the part where he/she says:
or
Emphasis mine.
This. It’s hard to see how no Antietam or Gettysburg would have changed the outcomes at Vicksburg, Chattanooga, or Atlanta, or prevented Sherman’s march to the sea.
Re Lee and Vicksburg: if Lee thought he could have sent enough troops to lift the siege of Vicksburg without putting Richmond at risk, it’s hard for me to believe he would not have done so, rather than invade Pennsylvania. I’m not the world’s biggest Civil War buff, but I’ve never read that Lee even considered such a move.