The Last Contingency: The Final Chance for Southern Victory in the American Civil War

#History: A Journal of Student Research Volume 2 Conflict & Law Article 3 6-2018 The Last Contingency: The Final Chance for Southern Victory in the American Civil War Alexander Parysek The College at Brockport Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/hashtaghistory Part of the Military History Commons, and the United States History Commons Repository Citation Parysek, Alexander (2018) "The Last Contingency: The Final Chance for Southern Victory in the American Civil War," #History: A Journal of Student Research: Vol. 2 , Article 3. Available at: https://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/hashtaghistory/vol2/iss1/3 This Paper is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @Brockport. It has been accepted for inclusion in #History: A Journal of Student Research by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @Brockport. For more information, please contact . THE LAST CONTINGENCY: THE FINAL CHANCE FOR SOUTHERN VICTORY IN THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR Alexander Parysek, The College at Brockport By the year of 1864, the North and South had been at war for roughly three years. A year previously, the Confederacy experienced a great military defeat at Gettysburg; a battle that many believe represented the South’s last chance for victory and secession. However, there was still a chance of a negotiated independence for the Confederacy. The South’s chance lay in making the war too tiring and costly for the Northern public to accept. 1864 was also a presidential election year, and if the Confederacy had not been so spectacularly defeated on the battlefield during the election, there is a chance that President Abraham Lincoln would have lost his bid for reelection to the Democratic hopeful, George B. McClellan. Had he won, the outcome of the Civil War would likely have been very different. However, McClellan did not win, and Lincoln became the President, ensuring the North’s continued commitment to the war. This course of events in 1864 is an example of historian James McPherson’s contingency theory, which asserts that the Union’s Civil War victory was not pre-determined, and instead it was contingent on the outcome of key event that could have went the other way and led to a Confederate victory. This paper will argue that the outcome of the Civil War hinged, not on the well-known numerical superiority of the North, but rather on the avoidable failures of Confederate leadership, which led to massive battlefield defeats in 1864. The North did have superior manpower and resources. The North had a greater population, larger industrial capacity, and better logistical systems than the South did. They had a better navy that they were able to blockade and corner the South, and the North had the better diplomatic game with overseas nations. Finally, the North was more united than the South; many areas in the South were Unionist, most notably the area of West Virginia and this has led many to argue that the North simply overwhelmed the Confederate forces. This explanation originated first from the defeated Confederate soldiers themselves. Robert E. Lee’s speech at Appomattox implies this with his remarks about how “The Army of Northern Virginia has been compelled to yield to overwhelming numbers and resources.”1 Similarly, when asked about the Confederate defeat, a Confederate soldier replied that, “they never whipped us, Sir, unless they were four to one. If we had anything like a fair chance or less disparity of numbers, we should have won our cause and established our independence.”2 Later generations continued to point to the Union’s undeniably superior resources as the primary cause of their victory. Historian Richard Current stated that “God was on the side of the heaviest battalions,”3 while Shelby Foote in Ken Burns’s Civil War documentary noted that “the North fought with one hand behinds its back: and that the South never had a chance at all.4 Other historians, however, have challenged the assertion that the North’s victory was inevitable. In particular, James McPherson’s posited “contingency theory,” which argues that #History, Volume 2 the South had many chances for victory at various points during the war.5 Historians like Gabor S. Boritt and Gary Ecelbarger have supported McPherson’s theory, with Ecelbarger citing the conflict for Atlanta as being a critical turning phase in the war. 6 Others like Reid Mitchell, accept the contingency theory, but also acknowledge that the Union had the odds stacked in their favor due to their superior resources.7 Whereas, Albert Castel explicitly rejects the idea that superior numbers and logistics guaranteed Northern victory.8 Of all the potential outcomes during the war, McPherson’s argument that the events of 1864 and Lincoln’s resulting reelection represented both the last and best chance for Confederate victory is the strongest. 9 By 1864 there was a peace faction movement in the North that sought to achieve a negotiated peace with the South. On varied fronts, the Union forces seemed stalled, and with no foreseeable end in sight to the war. After three years, the carnage of war had taken its toll on many on both sides. There was a real danger that the Northern public would grow tired of the war and elect another President to push forth a negotiated peace settlement. The North’s advantages were only relevant to the victory if they had the willpower and competence to utilize them properly. and if the Northern public had realized that they had effectively won by the fall of 1864. Abraham Lincoln’s reelection was uncertain. If he did not win, then the war may have ended in a negotiated peace settlement. Lincoln faced a popular opponent, former Union General George B. McClellan. McClellan was charismatic, determined and an easy candidate for the Democrats to rally behind. Lincoln’s potential defeat at the hands of McClellan was contingent on the outcome of two events on the battlfields in 1864.One was the Confederate government’s decision to replace General Joseph E. Johnston with General John Bell Hood in Georgia. The change in leadership prompted a foolish assault that decimated the Confederate forces in Georgia and allowed General William Tecumseh Sherman to take Atlanta and win a smashing victory for the Union forces. The other event that impacted the election was General Philip Sheridan’s campaign in the Shenandoah Valley and his defeat of the Confederate forces led by Jubal Early. These two great battles were key victories for the Northern war effort. They raised Northern morale and convinced the people that victory was very much possible.10 The war continued for several more months, but these two events played a pivotal role in deciding the outcome. However, in the years leading up to 1864 there was a possibility for the Confederates to gain the upper hand. In the eastern theater, the Army of the Potomac was plagued by a series of ineffectual or timid commanders who could not utilize their resou (...truncated)