giradman
iPad Fan
If the South had had an industrial capacity to rival the North, the war could very well have ended differently. They couldn't out produce the North and had to contract with companies in Europe for much of what they needed, including commerce raiders such as the CSS Alabama.
Hi Scifan.. - isn't that bar graft astounding as to the differences between the North & South at the start of the Civil War - my immediate reaction is NO WAY!
There have been SO many books, chapters, analyses, etc. on the topic of the South winning the war that one might devote a decade of study and of course not resolve the issue. April of this year was the 150th anniversary of the end to the Civil War and yet more literature emerged - below is the beginning paragraph of an article in the New York Times that might be of interest. Gary Gallagher in his superb 48-lecture series on the war (shown below from the Teaching Company) devotes a number of lectures to the 'economics' of the two combatants and also on the 'chances' of the South being successful.
The South, a rural, slave-holding economy w/ cotton being its main financial strength faced such a determined and stronger enemy, especially after the victory at Antietam in September of 1862 and Lincoln's release of the Emancipation Proclamation - the war was now definitely for not only preserving the Union, but also for the abolition of slavery. The South's hopes that England & France might intervene (which likely was not a great possibility from the start) were completely shattered. The South's main economic 'ace in the hole' regarding buying power on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean was cotton, and the northern blockade and the capture of major port cities made that much less likely. The southern navy was impressive when considering the few excellent Confederate commerce raiders that roamed the seas, as you mention above - several were quite successful but made little difference - an excellent introductory book is shown below for those interested; but there are many other books on this topic.
The 'Lost Cause' authors after the war (whether the generals or others) have taken the Southern successes, failures, and potential of winning the war in all directions, so there are MANY opinions and I'll not add more. BUT, one question that has always intrigued me regards Robert E. Lee - he was considered by Winfield Scott (kind of the George Marshall of his time & head of the US Army), as the best soldier in the US military (Lee was a colonel); thus, Lincoln offered Lee the head of the Union forces which he refused after Virginia left the Union - WHAT if Lee had accepted? My personal opinion (which is probably not worth much) is that the war would have been short, Grant would not have become the personage he achieved (nor later a President), and Robert E. Lee might have been elected President and lived in the White House - but hey just ate dinner and have had a few glasses of wine - Dave
.By March 1865, it was obvious to all but the most die-hard Confederates that the South was going to lose the war. Whether that loss was inevitable is an unanswerable question, but considering various “what if” scenarios has long been a popular exercise among historians, novelists and Civil War buffs.