The Instigator
1Historygenius
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
TheRomanticist
Con (against)
Winning
31 Points

The CSA could have won the Civil War

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/12/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,887 times Debate No: 18770
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (8)

 

1Historygenius

Pro

I believe that the CSA (Confederate States of America) could have won the civil war.

My argument: The CSA armies were doing very good in their concentration on Washington D.C. and they should have kept on moving around Washington and attacking supply depots. General Robert E. Lee. of the southern armies should have kept his forces on this primarily political goal which is to defeat President Abraham Lincoln of the USA politically. If he avoided Gettysburg then he could have won the war.

The other necessity for winning the war was if Britain and/or France entered the war. The overwhelming power of these empires, especially Britain in Canada, could have won the way for the CSA.
TheRomanticist

Con

This is my first debate, so I do hope my conduct is considered satisfactory.

"The CSA armies were doing very good in their concentration on Washington D.C. and they should have kept on moving around Washington and attacking supply depots."

The confederacy was repelled at Washington, proving either that they were incapable of such a task, or lacked the tactical prowess to do so.

"General Robert E. Lee. of the southern armies should have kept his forces on this primarily political goal which is to defeat President Abraham Lincoln of the USA politically."

If Lee could have beaten Lincoln politically, there would have been no need for a war. I would also like to note that the South was much weaker politically, as most of the country wanted to maintain the Union to protect it from outside attacks. Combine this with the chance of a slave uprising, and the South was severely outmatched.

"If he avoided Gettysburg then he could have won the war."

There is little reason to believe that avoiding this one key loss would have allowed them to win the war. Even if the confederacy had concentrated all it's power here, it would have lost due to having less men and resources. There were more men in the Union army located in Gettysburg than there were in the entirety of the Confederate army.

"The other necessity for winning the war was if Britain and/or France entered the war. The overwhelming power of these empires, especially Britain in Canada, could have won the way for the CSA."

Most of these countries would not have aided the South for the same reasons they did not.

1) When the war started, they simply got their cotton from other countries. There was no need to damage their economies with another expensive war.

2)Most of Europe was also morally opposed to slavery, so

3) If they were to enter the country for any reason, it would have been more likely to have been to reclaim the land while it was still under stress from the war.

Debate Round No. 1
1Historygenius

Pro

My opponent has stated that the Confederates had not take Washington when I was saying that there were working around Washington but they did eventually move north into Pennsylvania.

The political goal to ending the war was to kick Lincoln out of officer in 1864 to hopefully find someone that was more willing to negotiate than he was and to hope that the people of the Union would lose faith in the war.

After Gettysburg there was a turning point in the war and Lee never got any further into the north. So I will partially agree with my opponent that it is unclear if Lee could win the war based on this battle because it is hard to predict the future but my point that Lee could have won the war if not for Gettysburg is due to my point of the political victory which if Lee avoided Gettysburg he would have never lost at Gettysburg.

In this scenario Britain and France do join the war which I stated. Con must prove how the British Empire and the French Empire would lose the along the CSA.
TheRomanticist

Con

"...there were workingaround Washington but they did eventually move north into Pennsylvania."

If you wish to restate your earlier argument, please refute the claim I made that they were either incapable or lacked the tactical prowess to make such a move. Then, please provide a explanation as to how this event would lead to a overall victory for the South over the North.

"The political goal to ending the war was to kick Lincoln out of officer in 1864 to hopefully find someone that was more willing to negotiate than he was and to hope that the people of the Union would lose faith in the war."

1) Once again, I must state that if the South was capable of removing Lincoln from office, the war would have been unneccesary. In fact, removing themselves from the system where they had representation sounds counterproductive.

2) Even if they were able to defeat Lincoln, you have not provided any evidence that this would end the war.

3) You use the term "find someone" as though the Confederate army would be allowed to choose the Union's next president. As we know, Lincoln was replace with Johnson, a man who was a pro-war Democrat. Even if Lincoln was replaced, he would have been replaced by Johnson, only at an even earlier stage.

4) I still believe the Union had more to fight for, as they had the belief that all men should be free, their brotherhood bond with the South, and the need of a solid union to defend against foreign invasion.

"...my point that Lee could have won the war if not for Gettysburg is due to my point of the political victory which if Lee avoided Gettysburg he would have never lost at Gettysburg."

First, this sounds like a military issue and not a political one, and it would not have been a victory because ,in this scenario, it would have never happend. Yes, if he never went to Gettysburg, he would have never lost at Gettysburg, but this does nothing to support that he would not have simply lost another war in another place.

"In this scenario Britain and France do join the war which I stated."


This debate would be pointless if you could manufacture any scenario. Provide for me probable reasons that the British and the French would be willing to further damage their economy with a war that offered them very little reward on their end.





Debate Round No. 2
1Historygenius

Pro

The reason why they moved north into Pennsylvania was to attack supply depots because, if you do not know this, supply depots supply an army. Supply depots are major bases of supplies that send supplies to armies because armies need supplies. If Lee was able to attack these supply depots then the Union forces would have a hard time receiving them.

Lincoln was decided to find the CSA in the war. If there was a president who would rather negotiate or compromise with the south than there would possibly be no war. One of the objectives that Lee wanted was to defeat Lincoln politically so that hopefully a compromising president would come in to negotiate rather than fight. The hope was that the removal of Lincoln would end the war. If the war continued to look bad then the Democrats would probably have someone other than George McClellan run who is pro war however, in hope of compromise, the Democrats selected an anti-war running mate.

The value of the CSA to Europe was that it supplied cotton which was a big money crop during the era. The CSA traded cotton for guns due to the fact that they did not have good industry. Britain and France made a lot of money off the CSA so it is good for their economies. Has stayed a major cotton seller? Seems not. However, this about how the south could have won the civil war and the opponent must give reasons how they would not. The opponent has failed to state how the Union would win against Britain and France.
TheRomanticist

Con

"If Lee was able to attack these supply depots then the Union forces would have a hard time receiving them."

The Union had far more supplies than it would have ever needed in order to win the war. The destructions of the supply depots may have dented the Unions force, but never would have caused a serious shortage that could not have been overcome by production in Northern factories.

"If there was a president who would rather negotiate or compromise with the south than there would possibly be no war."

This is somewhat detrimental to your case. A war never happening and winning a war are two different things.

"If the war continued to look bad then the Democrats would probably have someone other than George McClellan run who is pro war however, in hope of compromise, the Democrats selected an anti-war running mate."

I would like to restate that Lincoln's successor, Johnson, indeed ended up being a more pro-war man than Lincoln himself, and while you state the idea that an anti-war man might have been elected, you were unable to name a probable candidate.

Odds of making the war look bad were also more in favor of the Union, which was more widly supported than the Confederacy. The Union held stronger beliefs as to why the war was important, namely the three I stated earlier, freedom for all men, brotherhood, and protection. This proves that the Confederacy was already more likely to crumble than the Union politically.

"The value of the CSA to Europe was that it supplied cotton which was a big money crop during the era."

When the war began and the South attempted its "King Cotton Diplomacy", it made several errors in judgement.

1) They previously supplied a large surplus of cotton to Europe which bought them time.

2) Europe found it less expensive to urge other cotton producing countries to increase production. Europe had no need for American cotton when they could get it from India, Egypt, and Brazil.

3) Most of Europe oposed slavery, and contributed to their reluctance to aid the South.

"The opponent has failed to state how the Union would win against Britain and France."

I have not provided a method the Union could have used to win against Britain and France because you have not provided a decent argument for the case that any European country would have been willing to aid them. You failed to combat my reasons why Britain and France would not defend the South, and therefore they still stand. My reason the South would not win with the aid of Europe is essentially the fact that Europe would not aid them.

Probability should be maintained in a historical debate, otherwise you might say they could have won with the invention of the ak-47. While they could have won with ak-47s, this is begging the question, as you do not provide a solid framework upon the possibility of how they would aquire them.

Thank you for taking the time to debate with me. Hopefully, both of us have learned something from this. May the best man win!

Source:http://mshistory.k12.ms.us...
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by 1Historygenius 5 years ago
1Historygenius
@Lotus_flower I don't know why but ok.
Posted by blackhawk1331 5 years ago
blackhawk1331
The CSA WOULD have won if not for Gettysburg.
Posted by lotus_flower 5 years ago
lotus_flower
This makes me laugh. (:
1Historygenius makes me laugh. (:
Posted by Cobo 5 years ago
Cobo
Cause everyone knows, THE FCUKING NORTH STARTED THE CIVIL WAR!!!
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
1HistorygeniusTheRomanticistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: After reading, I conclude that Con only slightly takes the lead, because Pro did not refute anything, but did make some solid arguments.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
1HistorygeniusTheRomanticistTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: All the pro had to do was provide an argument about how it was POSSIBLE for the south to win the war, but he missed key arguments that could have proven just that. Con refuted every point the Pro made while Pro just stuck to his theory so argument goes to Con.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
1HistorygeniusTheRomanticistTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con, sources would have made this a landslide for you. You made many statements without sources (to be fair, Pro did this too, but the object is to do better, not do the same). Pro simply insisted that Europe would get involved, when Con showed that there was no logical reason for them to do so. What would have been nice would be some solid numbers by Con to show just how unsupplied and undermanned the south really was.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
1HistorygeniusTheRomanticistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: 1HistoryGenius failed to make any argument that was strong enough...Note that TheRomanticist's argument that Britain and France would not have wanted to partake in the King Cotton trade is valid, since it negates Pro's entire argument that a) Britain and France would join and b) overwhelm the US (if Con showed that they wouldn't join, then the factor of their presence is irrelevant)...and so on.
Vote Placed by GaryBacon 5 years ago
GaryBacon
1HistorygeniusTheRomanticistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I feel that Con clearly rebutted all points posed by Pro, while Pro skirted many of the points raised by Con. The arguments from Con's side were simply better, and seemed to be more well thought out.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
1HistorygeniusTheRomanticistTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Obviously the South could have won. But, Seems to me that Pro could have won by listing the other presidential candidates and their positions on the war. All the unrest, the riots, the hangings, the North might not have tolerated any more bad news; it was close to electing AnyonebutLincoln. But, despite repeated opportunities to say this, Pro didn't. Nor did he counter the strange claim that losing one fight meant the South lacked the skill to go North.
Vote Placed by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
1HistorygeniusTheRomanticistTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Althought CON won, I am counterbombing kkjnay as his RFD is unconvicing.
Vote Placed by kkjnay 5 years ago
kkjnay
1HistorygeniusTheRomanticistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had better arguments.