when and where was the war really lost?

[Cpl. Hemphill C.S.A.]

Here is an interesting question that has been argued over since the surrender. When do you believe that the War Between the States was truly lost? What could have happened differently to change the outcome of the war?

[Smokin_Gun]

When the North used the excuse that the War was about Slavery and it was Lincoln's idea...and the Union said they kicked out the South rather than the South susceeding from the Union before hand. Gave an advantage of support to the Union and a loss of supplies to the South.
It wasn't lost and the South still exists and always will... I would truely like to have seen the outcome had South not been said to surrender and the Carpet baggers weren't still in Washington or State Capitols.
A man can dream can't he?
 

[Cpl. Hemphill C.S.A.]

Thats a very good answer and correct in all aspects political but what I was more or less asking was more or less militarily speaking. I believe the actual war was lost when Gen.Stonewall Jackson was killed. If Gen. Jackson had lived then Gen. Longstreet and his men would have been free to aid in the defense of Vicksburg. Gen. Jackson wouldn't have hesitated to take the high ground on the first day of Gettysburg and more than likely aided in a Confederate victory there. Gen Johnston,Gen. Pemberton and Gen Longstreet would have crushed the forces of Grant and Sherman in Mississippi and would have retaken control of the Mississippi River. With Confederate victories at Vicksburg and Gettysburg, England would have recognized the Confederate States as a soverign nation and more than likely offered their full support. Of course this is all theory and speculation but given what I have read and studied this scenario would be fairly close. 

[Smokin_Gun]

Sorry my that my Political Latitude got in ther way of the Events at the Longitude you speak of ... I'm not normally a politically activated individual. But that was the first and most irritating responce that came to mind at the time.
What you said would be quite correct had we not lost the life of Genral Jackson ... all that was needed was to be recognized by especially England and we would most definate had been if we controlled the Mississippi River.
I need to study more of the Battles of the War Against Northern Aggression ... and it's not to hold a grudge with any Yankees or anyone from the North as that War is paste only to the point of what we can remember from it's outcome.
Remember it we must as we'll all be together if it does come again...lest we forget.

Cpl. Hemphill you are definately Officer Material ifin ya ever decide to take on a Commision ... otherwise the Confederacy is Proud to have another knowlgable and dedicated Non-Com like yurself.
Great topic would like to dicuss more events along these lines or any of your likin'.

[51_60_colt]

I think Gettysburg was a very hard loss. Also the loss of Jackson and the length of the war coupled with the lack of supplys and effective supply chains. If we had only pushed through to Washington                   

[Smokin_Gun]

That was a big hit that the  took ... but man takes alot a fight to keep goin' on after that. Was a turn for the worse for sure as supplies stopped the railroad blown up. Pure heart on both sides kept that War goin' on as long as it did...
A War between our States American vs American as tough a call as was as tough a War.

[Joel]

Hi

Anteitam, or Sharpsburg. Prior to that battle Europe was at it's closest to recognizing the South and the South's only hope was that recognition, and the support that went with it. Other than that, even with Jackson, the deck was simply stacked too much against them.

Plus in the election of 1862 a shift of only 1% of the vote in a few key states would have swung the US house of representatives to the Democrats. With a Democratic house and European recognition (France really wanted to extend that recognition, England being the stumbling block) the North would have gone for a negotiated peace. A union loss at Anteitam could easily have swung that 1% of the vote.

I know historians tend to discount the one big battle theory but I think it is true in this case

[G Dog]

My partial answer is that the end for the Confederacy began after the failure of Lee's second offensive northward (Gettysburg) combined in the same month with the fall of Vicksburg.  The Army of Northern Virginia was never the same again and the Federals controlled the entire Mississippi River and river valley from Duluth to New Orleans.  Unaffordable attrition in the East, without gain, and a strategic calamity in the West.  Downhill from there.   For the Confederacy Gettysburg was a must win and Vicksburg was a must hold. 

Inflation set in badly at this point too, only the nabobs and the other rich folks had a decent diet from then on out. 


The Confederate collapse at Vicksburg was avioidable (I think), but thats another chapter.  That the ANV was able to escape back to Virginia across the Potomac was also avoidable, for two days before the crossover it was in flood stage and Lee's retreat was blocked.  If Meade had counter attacked then he may have finished the ANV, and essentially ended the war.  He should have tried, Lincoln thought so too.  Many, even most, historians think the Federals were played out after the previous fighting and just did not have the jam for a counterattack.  Given the stakes I think an attempt was warranted.