What was the greatest chance for a Confederate victory?

Many commanders from the Civil War are forgotten, and probably only 4 people remember is Sherman, Lee, Grant and Stonewall. But there were many other great commanders. Joe Johnston is in my opinion an underrated commander and most feel that he was to much of a defensive person who would never attack. And while that is for the most part true, him being on the defensive at least prolonged the war, and he had ideas on how the Confederacy would have greater odds of winning. For one, he believed John Pemberton should abandon Vicksburg after Grant landed his troops to the South. He knew that is Vicksburg was besieged, and Pemberton was still garrisoning it with his 30,000+ troops, then those troops were lost, and it would be better if he linked up with Johnston's command so as to be on par with Grant in numbers. Other underrated commanders include: Longstreet, John B. Gordon (prolonged the war by being badass at the Battles of the Wilderness and Spotsylvania Courthouse), Winfield Scott Hancock, and probably a lot more who I just can't remember.

Though we should also mention James Wilson, one of, if not the only, General to ever defeat Forrest in a Cavalry battle.

Some would argue that Forrest lacked men, supplies, etc.

Yes, but I'm just saying, I mean the guys that they had sent after Forrest before had way more, but they couldn't finish the job. Wilson did. I'm not saying he's the best, as I said Forrest is, but Wilson deserves some recognition.

I agree with you. They sent every thing after Forrest in 1864 and 65, I am not disputing that, and I am not even disputing that Wilson was bad, and he indeed deserves recognition. I am only saying others would say that Wilson doesn't deserve said recognition.

I understand why people would say and think that, but he beat Forrest twice and lead the wildly sucessful Raid through Georgia and Alabama. He also saved the Federals at the battle of Franklin, where he defeated Forrests attempt to cut the Federals' line of retreat. He was pretty good.

Thinking about the Union trying to beat Forrest reminded me of a time when there was a Union raid using mules through Georgia I believe, and Forrest decimated it.. Quite funny.

I remember hearing about that. Makes me laugh just thinking about it. I mean, who came up with that idea? Mules for mounts for Cavalry? Wow. Just wow.

Can mules even run?

If they can, it's probably not as fast as horses, that's for sure.

They were supposed to be used for the rocky terrain. We all know how that worked out.

Lee is not vicious. He had the best opportunity to take out Pope's force and he missed it. I am not saying he was a bad commander, but these are facts. Every time he does attack, even if it is victorious, still caused great losses of life and he is responsible. The battles of Cold Harbor show what Jackson would have actually done early in the war if Lee had listened, but he did not.

What? Even when Jackson died, Lee did fine. Overland Campaign, Petersburg, etc. He kept the army alive, no more has to be said about that. You are overstating Jackson's importance in the overall scheme of things. You say that Jackson would have hunkered down in front of Richmond against McClellan's superior forces? That is a battle that the Confederates would lose. Say what you will of McClellan (he was an asshole in my opinion), he knew how to besiege a place. He would have surrounded Richmond with his superior numbers and simply starved the Confederates. If Lee hadn't taken the initiative and attacked, then Richmond would be lost. May I also mention that Jackson was terrible during the Seven Days Battle. He failed at at Beaver Dam Creek, Gaines Mill, Savage Station, White Oak Swamp, caused the loss at Glendale and failed at Malvern Hill. That is 6 of the 8 major battles.

@1Historygenius Yeah but anytime absolutely anyone attacked in the Civil War or any war during that time period they took heavy casualties. It was just the nature of war. 1 small battle in the Civil War killed as many men as the US has lost in the entire time we have been in Iraq.

I believe the quote was "Jackson has lost his left arm and I have lost my right" Pretty much, Jackson was shot by his own troops while perfuming reconnaissance at night. His left arm was amputated, which led to his death by disease.

This whole arguement is absurd because none of it is relevant. Lee kept the army of Northern Virginia alive longer then just about anyone else could have unless he reverted to gorilla warfare 1865 as Davis wanted him to. Jackson died he was shot case closed if he and Lee met on the battle field with two seperate armies of equal strength no question in my mind Lee would have won. The whole South loved Lee Jackson like John Renolds was well liked by his men and the army but as history shows us the army did not fall apart without him. Also in the long run taking out Pope's army would have affected the outcome only a little there was still one army on the eastern front and another being trained.

I will now revert back to the original purpose of this thread. The only things I find realistic is border states joining Confederates, more Kentucky than Missouri. Britain entering war, the one I believe would have ensured Confederate victory. Atlanta not falling and Lincoln thus not getting reelected would have caused the South to win And the Army of the Cumberland destroyed. I know, you might be thinking what is this guy talking about. But let me put it like this. If the Army of the Cumberland destroyed, Bragg and his Army of Tennessee augmented by Longstreet would have taken Chattanooga, and Grant and Sherman would armies, fresh off Vicksburg and dealing with Joe Johnston, would have no additional army reinforcements to help them in retaking Chattanooga. Maybe then, the Confederates would still hold it throughout the winter and into 1864, which would make Sherman's campaign to take Atlanta longer, maybe leading to Atlanta not falling, or maybe even Grant not getting made Lieutenant General.

Guerrilla warfare would have not helped the South. It would have just created complete instability down there until the late 1900's. Lincoln would never have been able to have his policy of reparation, as he would have been too busy (until his death, at least) trying to finish off the guerrillas. This may have simply created a climate of brutal occupation in the South. It would pave the road for something similar to the British and Northern Ireland. It would be an area with certain radical terrorist groups maybe even to this day. I respect Lee for his final decision to encourage reconciliation.

Also, @Shisno, as long as we are discussing the Civil War the thread is on topic
Of you want a thread that is way off topic, go on the WW1 thread.

It is why I consider Lee the greatest general the US has ever produced. He understood that the South lost, and he would not condemn it to years of brutal occupation because his forces became guerrillas. I respect him for that. I admire him for that.
Just wanted it back on topic to how the South would win the civil war.

I completely agree. It shows there really are good people in the world. I also respect that he was so easy on slaves, and I believe he had abolitionist tendencies himself. He was fighting for the South, not for the right to keep slaves. For that, I can completely sympathize with him and its hard not to read a book about the Civil War and feel bad he lost.