Goober said:
I have long been interested uin the American Civil War, the idea that a country that today seems to invincible could have been once so fragile not long ago is fascinating to me. Keep in mind that I am Canadian, and not being anti-American here. Americans are my friends, neighbours, and good allies. I am simply interested in a piece of their history that was very, very poorly covered at school for me, even though it was a significant event. Anyway, I was reading about the Civil War over Xmas, and it got me to wondering under what circumstances could the CSA have won the war? By that I mean continue existing, that is a win for the CSA and a loss for the USA in my books. All of my research was done on Google or Wikipedia.
I have developed 3 questions about the War and the CSA, and I have tried to answer them. What I would like from you History-lovers is how realistic my answers might be, and how you would answer the question. Anyway, here goes:
1 - Under what circumstances could the CSA have won the Civil War?
It would have been very tough. They had no advantages outside of generalship. The north had all the banks (financing the war), industry, population, food, etc. Even wealth from southern cotton exports became a non-factor after the Union Blockade became effective. The north was also more unified after Lincoln arrested southern sympathizers (southern states believed they were sovereign, not the Confederacy, and would occassionally withold troops or supplies). They wanted to outlast the Union to get them to tire of war, which would have required more supplies and men than they had to maintain a defensive war. Robert E. Lee tried to get the Union to give up quicker, but failed both times to win in northern territory. With a few exceptions, everywhere outside of the Army of Northern Virginia was Union victory after Union victory. The Mississippi river and New Orleans quickly fell to Union control and southerners sold their cotton crops to the Union for food. They would really have needed a Union leadership less certain of their desire for ending the Confederacy. Their best chance came after Ulysses S. Grant faced off against Lee and was hit with tremendous casualties, which hurt Lincoln's popular support in an election year. But victories from Sheridan and Sherman got Lincoln reelected (and Grant's policies, although unpopular, forced Lee to stay on the defensive, where he continually withdrew as his army shrunk and Richmond fell).
2 - How would that have affected major historical events such as WWI and WWII? (Assume the CSA continues to exist alongside the USA)
Its tough to say. They might have been enemies, they might even have been friends (they could have put aside their differences like Canada and the US did). Its certain that trading between north and south had some uses before the war and could have been useful after the war. They might have joined both World Wars or avoided them all together. There are a lot of other areas that might have effected American world view that would have been effected by two Americas (Would the US have become an imperialistic power if they were two countries? The Confederacy would have had the reasons to want to annex Cuba, but the Union had the resources to fight Spain across the globe. If they weren't as imperialistic, they wouldn't have been tied into global issues, wouldn't have annexed the Philippines, opened markets in China, and come into conflict with the Japanese). I think there is way too much to consider overall.
3 - How could the CSA's existance have altered the Cold War? I am also fascinated by the Cold War, which is why i am asking this.
Same issues as before. Basically, if the USA or CSA doesn't enter World War II, they wouldn't be involved in the Cold War. I find it hard to imagine that either American country would fight the other to help the Russians, though.
Here are what I think the answers are, but keep in mind my knowledge of this event is, well, not that advanced.
I'll comment on any possible problems.
1 - For me, its the Battle of Gettysburg. That seems to have been the tipping point. Until Lee got so famously defeated, the CSA was looking like it was winning. If Lee had won, then Lincoln would have either delayed issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, or issued it when the USA was perceived to be losing the war. Either way, it would have not had the significant impact that it did have. What the CSA needed was time, and I believe a win by Lee, it doesn't matter how decisive, as long as he won, would have given the CSA the critical 6 months to a year that they needed to organize their Government, their nation, and their Army to survive as a nation. Lee winning would likely have caused a lot of debate and discussion within the USA, especially in their Congress that would have hampered their war effort, and possibly increase War Weariness.
By Gettysburg, the Emancipation Proclimation had already been issued (issued at Anteitam a year earlier when Lee also tried to invade the north). There is no question that a victory would have given the south a tremendous boost to win the war. But the south was being worn out more than the north (since they didn't have the resources to last as long). If Lee hadn't attempted to invade the north at all, I think they would have lost eventually anyway.
Also, I am amazed at how seemingly close France, Britain, and other European Powers came to recognizing the CSA as a nation. If they had, then the USA would have probably removed its blockade of the CSA, either from diplomatic pressure or voluntarily, which would have allowed those nations to trade with the CSA, and give the CSA much needed money. The CSA would have had the time,a s I said, to build itself so it could withstand the USA when they tried to re-invade. Not only that, but they would have a hero in the form of General Lee, who would probably not continue attacking North, unless he got a decisive win at Gettysburg, and return to Virgina a hero for humuliating the USA.
If Britain had recognized the Confederacy, things would have been very different. But slavery prevented that from happening, overcoming economic concerns. Textile workers threatened to strike if Britain favored the Confederacy (since they despised slavery) and many upper class englishmen (including the royal family) tended to favor the United States. France supported a divided US so they could focus on their ambitions in Mexico without interference, but, without British support of the Confederacy, they weren't going to risk anything. Russia was actually a strong supporter of the Union. Overall, although badly needed, the Confederacy would have had to abandon slavery in order to get any diplomatic recognition (something that was eventually considered, but after it was too late).
2 - I am not 100% sure on this, but let me give it a crack. First, obviously history would be altered by this event. The USA and CSA would probably fight more wars over territory, and of course political and diplomatic exchanges. But I would see the USA and CSA eventually coming to some sort of cease-fire, or even peace. I would see the CSA as being more right-wing politically then the USA, and possibly even under the control of an autocratic dictator, but that seems unlikely to me. The USA would probably be more left-wing then in real life, not Communist, but more Socialist. The USA would probably be closer to Europe then IRL, and the CSA closer to right-wing states, such as Spain, Portugal, or in South and Central America. So, for WWI, the USA would probably help the Europeans, as usual, and I see the CSA sticking out of this one, possibly helping Germany, but I doubt it.
Obviously we both agree that it would be difficult to tell. Interestingly, the most socialistic of all groups in the United States would have been poor farmers, but, in the south, their political power was limited so I agree that they would have been conservative. In the north, the same conflicts of business vs. workers would have taken place. In Europe, I think the fact that it is more Left leaning is because it was more autocratic in the past (strong action provokes strong reaction). I imagine it would be similar to today, since the conflicts in both groups in the north would balance out the same way they did before.
WWII is a whole different Ball Game. I guess the answer to that depends on how right-wing the CSA was. If it was really right-wing, then it might help Hitler, but I seriously doubt that. The USA would likely go and help Europe faster, which means that WWII would likely be shorter then IRL. The CSA would possibly stay out of it. I am not sure, to be honest, anybody here have a suggestion?
I think both wars depends on how involved the United States was with European affairs. The Union still had the commerce to do so, so I imagine the reasons for the lend lease program to take place. CSA might be supportive of Britain (in peace time, I think Britain would resume trade, since they did so before the war). I see very little in common with Germany for either side, though.
3 - This relates to above. I see the CSA as being right-wing, and being very opposed to the Communists. The CSA and USSR would probably go against each other a lot. The CSA and USA would likely be weaker then the USSR, which means that neither could take them on one-on-one. All 3 would have Nukes, I think that is obvious. The CSA and USA could unite to defeat the USSR, but their history suggest they wouldn't. They might work together in some cases, but not join forces. I assume that the USSR having allies in Bolivia and Cuba as in IRL would seriously annoy the CSA, and the Cuban Missile Crisis might actually lead to war, but I doubt the CSA would risk it.
The Cuban Missile Crisis would definately have impacted the CSA more than USA, but I don't think it would have been dramatically different. Its possible that the Confederacy actually annexed the island in a war with Spain in order to expand slavery, so they might not have allowed any Batista or Castro to ever take over government. Like I said before, I don't think the United States and Confederate States would ever have fought against each other in support of the Soviet Union. They would share the role with Canada in guarding against Russian action, just like the United States previously did. The south was always more militaristic than the north, so they might be more likely to get troops for places like Vietnam or Korea, but the north had the money. I'm not sure if these conflicts in the cold war could have been as practical as they were without a united country (not that they ever were that great, but its possible South Korea failed too).
Anyway, those are my thoughts.
