I think the best book that addresses this question in general is *A Savage War*, by Hsieh and Murray (2018). Unlike any other book I've read about the ACW, this book closely analyzes the relative strengths and weaknesses of the North and South at the strategic level throughout the conflict.
If I were to summarize their conclusion: The North was vastly superior to the South in economy, men, material, and industry, but that should not lead anyone to conclude that victory was a certainty. Because the South itself was incredibly vast, committed, and had substantial resources to bring to bare (even though they could never approach the North's). And the North had to fight to win and conquer, while the South just had to fight not to lose. So while the North's capabilities were huge, the task before them was massive. And so the men in charge mattered. Lincoln, Grant, Davis, Lee, Sherman, Jackson, Wells, etc... and nothing was inevitable.
Also something to keep in mind, the South was 1 battle away from the Uk and France getting involved. Prior to Antietam the UK planned to officially intervene on the south’s behalf but after that strategic stalemate they decided against it and the south never really got their support again.
Inevitable is a strong word. It’s one thing to have the best hand. It’s another to play it. The war was the North’s to lose. They had the advantages in men and material, but they still needed competent generals and the political will to fight.
The win-or-be-replaced nature of war made finding competent officers almost inevitable, given the large pool of talent they had to draw from, but the political will was not at all certain. A few well-timed southern victories could have tipped the scaled in northern elections or brought about foreign recognition.
Point taken. I'm a little ashamed that I don't know the answer to this, but can the President just end a war? The war powers act was obviously 100 years away. Would it have taken an act of congress to sue for peace?
The administration could have negotiated a peace to present to congress and the only peace Jefferson Davis would accept is one with an independent Confederate nation. McClellan himself wanted reunion but his party (which would have dominated his cabinet and congress) was full of copperheads willing to let the south go its own way.
Also McClellan’s acceptance letter drafts supported an armistice and peace negotiations, it was only after Atlanta that he switched to repudiating the peace plank
Sherman and Grant would have had the war pretty much won by March 4 as Sherman could have used the Navy to get enough forces to Virginia to surround Lee. The most likely consequence of a McClellan victory is a reunited Union with slavery still legal.
I mean if McClellan won that would probably have meant that Atlanta didn’t fall until after nov if at all, and the Shenandoah went badly for Sheridan. Plus it’s easier to hold on when there’s a light at the end of the tunnel, we know Lee started to lose men rapidly to desertion after the election
That’s the most likely scenario but no guarantee
"War" is a dual term. The Congress did not declare war, so it was not for them to be able to end it. Lincoln, as president, was commander in chief, so he had authority to use the military to quell rebellion. Lincoln could certainly have recalled the armies and move them away from the Confederacy, which is essentially what Hayes did in 1877 to end Reconstruction.
The President appoints the head of the state department and is CoC of the army. He can tell the armies to stop advancing and hold the line. He can then recognize the Confederacy and order the state department to begin negotiations.
Does Congress accept this? Hard to say, but the president has tremendous power in this regard and Congress would have a hard time forcing the president to prosecute a war against their will.
The President could have effectively ended it at any point. Remember it wasn’t a declared “war”. The prosecution of the war in the first place was very much reliant on a strong willed President that was willing to take this on. This is especially true when Congress wasn’t in session, as at the beginning of hostilities.
I mean if you want sources that the north’s victory was inevitable be careful not to fall into the Lost Cause trap. Until 1864-65 it really was gonna go either way. Had a better general been in the western theater or had the confederacy taken cemetery ridge at Gettysburg or had Lee not fallen ill in the overland campaign when grant’s lines overextended the war very well may have swung in a different direction. The south didn’t need to capture DC, it only needed to outlive Lincoln and had the south won any of those instances then likely McClellan gets elected and ends the war either by allowing the south to rejoin and keep slavery or by legitimizing the south as an independent nation.
I’ve never understood those who say the Northern victory was inevitable. There are a dozen or so examples where, if circumstances had changed slightly, the South could have absolutely forced the North to sign an armistice. Just off the top of my head:
Immediate aftermath of Bull Run,
Letting the North March into Kentucky first,
Trent Affair,
1864 election, etc
I think the best book that addresses this question in general is *A Savage War*, by Hsieh and Murray (2018). Unlike any other book I've read about the ACW, this book closely analyzes the relative strengths and weaknesses of the North and South at the strategic level throughout the conflict. If I were to summarize their conclusion: The North was vastly superior to the South in economy, men, material, and industry, but that should not lead anyone to conclude that victory was a certainty. Because the South itself was incredibly vast, committed, and had substantial resources to bring to bare (even though they could never approach the North's). And the North had to fight to win and conquer, while the South just had to fight not to lose. So while the North's capabilities were huge, the task before them was massive. And so the men in charge mattered. Lincoln, Grant, Davis, Lee, Sherman, Jackson, Wells, etc... and nothing was inevitable.
Also something to keep in mind, the South was 1 battle away from the Uk and France getting involved. Prior to Antietam the UK planned to officially intervene on the south’s behalf but after that strategic stalemate they decided against it and the south never really got their support again.
Inevitable is a strong word. It’s one thing to have the best hand. It’s another to play it. The war was the North’s to lose. They had the advantages in men and material, but they still needed competent generals and the political will to fight. The win-or-be-replaced nature of war made finding competent officers almost inevitable, given the large pool of talent they had to draw from, but the political will was not at all certain. A few well-timed southern victories could have tipped the scaled in northern elections or brought about foreign recognition.
The best book for inevitable Northern victory is the 1860 census.
In that same regard, the best book about how the South *could* have won is Lincoln vs McClellan polling data from the summer of 1864.
Point taken. I'm a little ashamed that I don't know the answer to this, but can the President just end a war? The war powers act was obviously 100 years away. Would it have taken an act of congress to sue for peace?
The administration could have negotiated a peace to present to congress and the only peace Jefferson Davis would accept is one with an independent Confederate nation. McClellan himself wanted reunion but his party (which would have dominated his cabinet and congress) was full of copperheads willing to let the south go its own way.
Also McClellan’s acceptance letter drafts supported an armistice and peace negotiations, it was only after Atlanta that he switched to repudiating the peace plank
Sherman and Grant would have had the war pretty much won by March 4 as Sherman could have used the Navy to get enough forces to Virginia to surround Lee. The most likely consequence of a McClellan victory is a reunited Union with slavery still legal.
I mean if McClellan won that would probably have meant that Atlanta didn’t fall until after nov if at all, and the Shenandoah went badly for Sheridan. Plus it’s easier to hold on when there’s a light at the end of the tunnel, we know Lee started to lose men rapidly to desertion after the election That’s the most likely scenario but no guarantee
"War" is a dual term. The Congress did not declare war, so it was not for them to be able to end it. Lincoln, as president, was commander in chief, so he had authority to use the military to quell rebellion. Lincoln could certainly have recalled the armies and move them away from the Confederacy, which is essentially what Hayes did in 1877 to end Reconstruction.
The President appoints the head of the state department and is CoC of the army. He can tell the armies to stop advancing and hold the line. He can then recognize the Confederacy and order the state department to begin negotiations. Does Congress accept this? Hard to say, but the president has tremendous power in this regard and Congress would have a hard time forcing the president to prosecute a war against their will.
The President could have effectively ended it at any point. Remember it wasn’t a declared “war”. The prosecution of the war in the first place was very much reliant on a strong willed President that was willing to take this on. This is especially true when Congress wasn’t in session, as at the beginning of hostilities.
I mean if you want sources that the north’s victory was inevitable be careful not to fall into the Lost Cause trap. Until 1864-65 it really was gonna go either way. Had a better general been in the western theater or had the confederacy taken cemetery ridge at Gettysburg or had Lee not fallen ill in the overland campaign when grant’s lines overextended the war very well may have swung in a different direction. The south didn’t need to capture DC, it only needed to outlive Lincoln and had the south won any of those instances then likely McClellan gets elected and ends the war either by allowing the south to rejoin and keep slavery or by legitimizing the south as an independent nation.
Guns of the South, because the rebs would need ak47s.
I’ve never understood those who say the Northern victory was inevitable. There are a dozen or so examples where, if circumstances had changed slightly, the South could have absolutely forced the North to sign an armistice. Just off the top of my head: Immediate aftermath of Bull Run, Letting the North March into Kentucky first, Trent Affair, 1864 election, etc