American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Great points all around! Interesting to read thus far.

But I think Cam had the quote of the thread thus far (highlighted above in red). Only he would add that fabulous touch. I can see him on the Red Carpet with Joan Rivers now...

Just to add some more points. The machine gun and long range indirect artillery fire probably were the better markers for when war changed to so called "Modern". Modern meaning able to kill large quantities of people without achieving anything. The rifle didn't improve the killing power of the soldier measureably. Mostly because he was such a bad shot. It never occurred to either side to train their soldiers in how to fire their weapon effectively. Which is why the NRA was formed. Not to defend the second ammendment but to try to teach future citzen soldiers how to shoot.

As to whether manufacturing/supply being the key to who will win, France in 1940 is an example of how this isn't so. The more professional army with supperior tactics will defeat a large enemy that isn't. Manufacturing/supply is the key only when the war goes into stalemate mode and there is time to apply them.

_________________
General Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
AoT II/1/3 (CSA)

I think the south could have won the war but not in 1865. If the south fought a guerilla war eventually the Union would have got tired of losing money. I also think that the price of that course action would have been to high for most southerners, after all the north and the south are all americans.

_________________
General
Frank (Old Banshee) Mullins,
2nd Brigade, 1st Division, XVI Corps.
Army of the Tennessee.

This is a very interesting post and I am enjoying the replies. #1 and #2 are the ones to draw the obvious response, and all the others are sub-sets of the same equation. The only problem with #1 and #2 is that they are both ifs, ands, buts and maybes. Pure speculation.

I would like to address the options I felt were NOT misconceptions.

The Anaconda Plan: It basically worked. It also caused Lee to make strategic decisions (invade the North; relieve the pressure on Vicksburg) which he might have otherwise not made had the Confederacy not been on life support.

The 1864 election: Had McClellan won he vowed a negotiated peace. OK. Let's see. A majority of the Union Army voted for Lincoln. We have Sherman -- who hated politicians -- in control of Atlanta. Grant has Lee (his army no doubt on short rations) penned in Petersburg. All the bloodshed these two -- not to mention their troops - had endured over the past 3 years is to be negotiated away. I don't think so. Civilian control of the military back then is not being what it is today.
I'm not saying "coup", simply that neither would have gone along with anything that required them to relinguish that which they had already won. On what grounds of "strength" would the Confederacy be negotiating?

But the genie was already out of the bottle. There were over 100,000+ Union black soldiers -- some already veterans of combat -- who would be asked to allow their kin to remain as slaves (that is , the ones who had not already entered Union lines). Peacefully? Probably not.

The history of the United States was best ensured by the 1864 re-election of Abraham Lincoln. I think the alternative would have been CHAOS.

_________________
MG Robert Frost

Wonderful points, sir! You definately brought up some great ideas I had never thought much on concerning the 1864 election. I dont think McClellan would have stopped the war if elected though. He'd have loved to be "forced" to complete it and then take all the credit for the entire thing

One can hear him now...

"Our Armies, vastly outnumbered by thrice their own strength, soundly defeated the hoards of Lee and Johnston."

I think if McClellan had won the election he would have offered the South a peace plan because that is what he ran on. The prerequisite for him getting elected was that Sherman would be stalled in the mountains rather than taking Atlanta which is what pushed Lincoln over the top. Before Atlanta the war still looked endless. After the North could see the light at the end of the tunnel and peace was no longer a choice.

If McClellan as president ordered Sherman and Grant to stand down, I see nothing about their personnalities to indicate they wouldn't obey that order. I do think they would both initiate one last campaign in winter to take Atlanta and Richmond while Lincoln was still in office. Success would check McClellan.

The more interesting question in all this is what would Davis do? Davis was extremely rigid in his political outlook. McClellan would probably offer a peace plan requiring some concession from the South. Probably some path to reunification. Davis would probably rigidly ask for complete independence putting McClellan in the spot of appearing to surrender to the south in order to end the war. Something Congress might not allow.

Another interesting question is that if McClellan ordered a cease fire while all this was negotiated could the South's armies have recovered enough to continue the fight in 65?

_________________
General Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
AoT II/1/3 (CSA)

You can't ignore the European card in all this. Some major nations would recognize an independent south or prior to that offer both supplies and military aid (especially France who was already in Mexico) this arrangement would surely bolster the weakened South. A what-if: would France have eventually invaded the south?

_________________
Gen. Drex Ringbloom,
AotS ,Commanding

I think it's probably a safe bet that not only would France have invaded the South eventually, but England might have invaded the North.

_________________
BG David McWaters
ANV
7/2/II Corps
18th Alabama Infantry
Sharpshooters

Didnt the South propose an armistice with the Union when France got into Mexico? Or am I just mis-remembering something?

That would have been interesting. Halting one war to team up to whip France and then returning to war after that. Although an Army with Lee, Grant, Sherman, Stonewall, Sheridan and Longstreet leading veterans from Shiloh, Antietam, and the Valley would have been one very formidable force! Purely bunk though because it never would have happened.

the South's biggest mistake was the un-necessary and pointless attack on Ft Sumter and starting the war. They had a much better chance of getting their independence had they adopted a "wait and see" policy. There were many Northerners who were willing to let the South secede but when the Confederates fired on "their Flag" and attacked Ft Sumter, many Northerners saw that act as rebellion and treason. The rest, as they say, is history....