Originally Posted by MontyB

How about we start at the top, was there ever a way that the CSA's economy could have supported a successful war?
Negatives:
1. It had 25% the "free" population of the North.
2. 30% of the nation's Railways
3. Produced 10% of the nation's manufactured goods.
4. 3% of the nation's arms industry

Positives:
1. It accounted for 70% of the countries exports.

Looking at those numbers, it seems to me that the first major mistake the CSA made was not protecting its exports and putting more effort into breaking the blockade.

But I really don't see enough in those numbers to indicate that the South could ever have overcome the Union on the ground.

With out the blockade the export of cotton probably would have supported the country. In the Panic of 1857 the North had serious disruption of the economy, where the South's wasn't effected that much. As I said previously the CS Navy should have accepted the Indiamen, quickly converted them to warships and imposed a blockade on the North. no doubt the ships eventually would have been defeated, but might have given the South breathing room to build other ships. Obviously the self imposed embargo of cotton exports by some States was a disaster to finances. At least at Charleston the casemate Ironclads had too much draft to cross the bar most of the time and therefore unable to affect the blockade. Gen. Beauregard was 'dieled in" to naval efforts and advocated that the Navy build David type torpedo boats. The Hunley was an Army sub, not sure if the torpedo boats that were built were Army or Navy, but in decent numbers may have been much more usefull than the Ironclads, at least at Charleston. The inability to defend New Orleans resulted in a substantial % loss of population & industrial capacity.

Without being able to keep at least one major port open the South could not have maintained a functioning stable economy, add that to the Norths growing manufacturing capacity in terms of shipping I don't see a way the South could have even managed to keep one port open.

Was there any chance the South could have worked with Mexico via Texas?

Originally Posted by MontyB

Without being able to keep at least one major port open the South could not have maintained a functioning stable economy, add that to the Norths growing manufacturing capacity in terms of shipping I don't see a way the South could have even managed to keep one port open.

Was there any chance the South could have worked with Mexico via Texas?

They kept Mobile, Charleston and Wilmington "open" for most of the War. They did import through Mexico, at least until the Union secured the Miss. River. The US Navy created a Rule/Law that cargo going to a belligerent through a neutral 3rd party could be seized. The Brits in WW I used the rule to seize US ships with cargo destined for Germany routed through The Netherlands.

Well there ya go, I was under the impression that most of the confederate ports were blockaded for most of the war and with the fall of Vicksburg river, the confederacy pretty much became landlocked.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Well there ya go, I was under the impression that most of the confederate ports were blockaded for most of the war and with the fall of Vicksburg river, the confederacy pretty much became landlocked.

The 3 ports were blockaded, but was porous. Significant amounts of cargo made it through, enough to keep the Confederacy running. perhaps at a slow strangulation level. Obviously would have been much better for them if they could have built vessels that could have kept the US ships away from the coast. Mobile was usable until the Aug., '64 Battle of Mobile Bay. Wilmington, N.C. & Charleston S.C. until the last months of the war in '65.

On paper the Confederacy couldn't win, but same could be said about the Colonials in the Revolutionary War, the US in the War of 1812, and probably the Vietnamese in the recent unpleasantness.

Originally Posted by George

On paper the Confederacy couldn't win, but same could be said about the Colonials in the Revolutionary War, the US in the War of 1812, and probably the Vietnamese in the recent unpleasantness.

I certainly don't agree with the Revolutionary war comment, with a population of about 3 million the Colonial's had a fairly major advantage over the 50,000 British forces especially when you take into account the logistics of having to supply the British with men and war material.

That was a totally different argument to the civil war where both sides had much shorter supply lines.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I certainly don't agree with the Revolutionary war comment, with a population of about 3 million the Colonial's had a fairly major advantage over the 50,000 British forces especially when you take into account the logistics of having to supply the British with men and war material.

That was a totally different argument to the civil war where both sides had much shorter supply lines.

from what I've seen only about 1/3 of the population supported the revolution, the rest were either Loyalists or didn't want to get involved. 1812: Read somewhere that Wellington heard rumors that he was going to be named CnC of forces in America in the War of 1812 and wrote a letter pointing out all the prestige, ect that would be risked by the UK if such a notable commander was assigned to the role. Apparently he wasn't very optimistic of British chances in that war.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Well there ya go, I was under the impression that most of the confederate ports were blockaded for most of the war and with the fall of Vicksburg river, the confederacy pretty much became landlocked.

If my memory serves me correctly from my US military history class, the intercept rate at the beaning of the was was 1 in 10 and got close to 1 in 2 by the end of the war.

Check this page out if you want to explore the topic more

http://www.essentialcivilwarcurricul...rn-states.html

Originally Posted by MontyB

I certainly don't agree with the Revolutionary war comment, with a population of about 3 million the Colonial's had a fairly major advantage over the 50,000 British forces especially when you take into account the logistics of having to supply the British with men and war material.

That was a totally different argument to the civil war where both sides had much shorter supply lines.

It is not as different as you think. The Union had to station troops in towns as an occupation force otherwise the Rebels would take over once the Union troops leave. I am doing primary source research on military units from my home state of Maine. We like to think of the Civil War through the large battles. To the contrary, the war had a lot of occupation duties. A very small group of Rebels would come and go as they pleased in comparison to a Union force that was far greater in number.

I am a map guy when it comes to military movements and locations. Here is a map of Fort Pickens, Pensacola, FL I pulled from the library of Congress when I was reading about the movement and actions of the 15th Maine Volunteers INF REG. There were a lor of little fortifications for just a few Rebel Calvary troops