CPT Jack Durish The South's cause wasn't exactly what we all learned in General History class. When taking a closer and deeper look at civil War History, one learns the South's cause was actually more indepth/complicated, and broader in scoped than most general History teacher talk about in class. Jackson's strategy to always strike at the Union's vulnerabilities, not to challenge its power directly was pivotal. He won a campaign against the North with a force only a quarter of the size of the Union Army. Prior to his death the South had the most tactical wins of the war. As MAJ Oyler pointed out, had the South stayed in the south, not ivaded the north, they would have had a better outcome. The South had a 50/50% chance of winning or at least negotiating a favorable peace treaty if they stayed in the south. "Prior to Gettysburg European investors gave the Confederacy approximately a 42 percent chance of victory. Gettysburg/Vicksburg was the the turning point in the war. News of the severity of the two rebel defeats led to a sell-off in Confederate bonds. By the end of 1863, the probability of a Southern victory fell to about 15 percent." Poor strategic and tactical decisions led to their defeat not necessarily their causes. Although slavery, which I think you're alluding to, as one of their causes, was a nail in their coughing, when it came to support.

MAJ Byron Oyler I agree, Lee's decision to invade the north was pivotal and a key reason to why the South lost.

You've all made excellent points. I fall into the camp that says the turning point of the Civil War was when the South seceded. The deck was simply too heavily stacked against them . . .

MAJ Dale E. Wilson, Ph.D. I'm of the camp that the South had the right to secede. I don't agree that they did secede, and feel they should have stayed in Union, and negotiated their issues to a peaceful solution. But, in the end their decision to secede and fight a war ended slavery. So things worked out as they should. At an unfortunate bloody and horrific cost. But the Union, as it was, broken due to the Norths perceived violations of Southern States rights, exploited tariffs/over taxation, economic exploitation/Commerce inequities, the election of Lincoln (Because, he didn't appear on any Southern ballots and didn't win any Southern States), and the issue of slavery. There is disagreement among historians on the primary reason for the South's secession and the war. Some say it was issue of slavery and others say it was the other economic and political reasons. But they all agree the above reasons were all contributing factors, and causes of the war. There's also disagreement on weather the southern states could legally secede or not. Obviously the South felt they could and the North didn't. The Articles of Confederation did Grant the South permission to leave the Onion. But the later ratified Constitution S
says a State can't secede without permission from the states and congress. A decision that was later up held by the Supreme Court, in Texas versus White 1869. The Court found succession illegal and published an opinion that States can leave the union only after petitioning for permission to leave and must also have permission from Congress. Obviously it's a little more in-depth process than just that but, Im paraphrasing and summing to keep it short. The South had a chance to win the war. But it had to be done in a short matter of time. A long and protracted war favored the North. Mainly because, the South's population was 9 million people, 4 million of which were slaves. While the North consisted of 16 million people. So eventually they would win the battle of attrition due to numbers and indstrial superiority. Which they did. Maybe Lee's knowledge of these factors pushed him to make the ill fated decision to invade the north rather than stay in the south.

True dat . . .

Exactly so . . .