Could the South have won, and what would the aftermath have been?
Seen a million "Could Nazis win" threads, haven't seen one for the US Civil War, which IMO was a closer contest with more variables that could have swung in the South's favor. And not Harry Turtledove stupid time traveling Boers.
As a non-American this is a very interesting war to me but I'm not very knowledgeable about it beyond some of the big battles.
Only could have won if they had made serious gains early in the war and held onto them instead of retreating after battle. They simply didn't have the industrial might to compete with the north in a drawn out conflict.
Yes. If the south would have put the capital further away from the frontline, they could have freed up more resources. The would have helped the Confederacy capitalize on their victories early in the war.
No. They didn't have the men, weapons or logistics.
The Union had 5 times the free population and 20 times the industrial output of the Confederacy. The only way the South could have won would have been to convince the North that it wasn't worth fighting for.
I wonder why WV and VA didn’t reunify after the war
They could have won if they had foreign allies that aren't just a few Irish battalions and sypathetic natives
Check out the book Rebel Yell by SC Gwynne. Gives a fairly good account of how the Confederate army was consistently able to outmanuever and out perform the numerically superior armies of the north, atleast in the Virginia campaigns. it really dispells the trope that numerical superiority and having rifling technology made the union an unstoppable force. The union had some of the most incompetent leadership in its upper eschelons and as a result dragged the war out for years longer.
If Stonewall Jackson didnt fall to friendly fire, who knows how Gettysburg would have turned out. Maybe the south would have won, swooped south and burned Philadelphia, Baltimore, and ultimately DC to the ground.
This. Claiming the north was simply "too strong" is an oversimplification.
The south had no trains or factories. All they had was cotton and niggers.
So no.
The confederacy only needed to continue winning battles and dragging out the conflict. France and Britain were actively considering backing the confederacy because muh king cotton and Britain was still assmad about 1776. Initially it was never a southern goal to achieve total victory over the north, simply to repulse the invaders. As the war dragged on the idea of victory evolved into having to invade the north to halt their aggression. Hence, you didnt see any southern attempts to invade initially.
No and for much the same reason the Nazis couldn't win. In fact even more so, the Nazis lost because they had no oil and inefficient industry. The dirty Southrons didn't have any industrial capacity period. They had barely any infrastructure (a.k.a. trains) either so they couldn't pull a Stalin and kick their industry into gear by spending lives. They didn't have the resources, they didn't have the workforce, they didn't have the experience or the knowledge. Pretty much every time the South tried to manufacture something it turned into a screaming nightmare unless they farmed it out to England and France. And after the Emancipation Proclamation, it got really politically for England and France to keep supporting the South given their own domestic policy on slavery. Even if this hadn't happened, don't think that England and France would have saved you, Southrons. They saw you as weak, stupid and doomed to fail, and the only reason they supported you was so they could march in and take their old colonies back when your government inevitably collapsed.
The US would have benefited from better generals early in the war, certainly, but this only prolonged the inevitable. The wehraboos screech about how muh notsees could have won because most people aren't aware of just how hopeless Krautistan's oil situation was. But you don't here it about the South because even they are smart enough to realize there was no hope whatsoever.
The Civil War in tl;dr form? Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
>muh apologia and propaganda
stay mad Southron
/thread
Dragging out the conflict would have destroyed them though. The only tiny glimmer of hope they maybe had was to do enough damage early that the US would decide that their 60IQ inbred asses just weren't worth it.
The idea that England and France would have intervened was laughable. They didn't want the CSA to win, they wanted to destabilize North America so they could swoop in and get their colonies back without much of a fight. They played you like a goddamn fiddle.
Confederate logistics were fucked from the very beginning and everyone knows that about eighty percent of winning a war anyway. The real question is what would of happened if Wilkes didn't sperg out and allowed Lincoln to ship most of the blacks back to Africa like he wanted.
>The real question is what would of happened if Wilkes didn't sperg out and allowed Lincoln to ship most of the blacks back to Africa like he wanted.
This. The eternal southron just can't help ruining everything due to his own shortsighted selfishness and pride.
Did other nations like France or Spain formally recognize The Confederacy? I knew that the UK wouldn't recognize the South over possible trade disputes with the US, but what if other large nations did?
its your precious pet niggers that have an actual 60IQ and that you're a fucking moron
IIIRC the brits and a few others tried to support them with materiel because they wanted the United States weakened. Don't recall them actually officially recognizing the the Confederacy though.
>be 60IQ southron
>can't even type english correctly
pottery
>your pet niggers
We wanted to send them back to Africa. They were your pets, quite literally, not ours. We wanted nothing to do with them. The fact that they're here today is 100% your fault.
the Back to Africa movement had lost all momentum by the end of the war. Lincoln backed some (((businessman))) who built a work colony in the caribbean staffed with blacks, and it was such a shit show that nobody trusted any further attempts to move the blacks away from the US.
> Southron
Is this the new vatnik?
No, we never could have won the war without British and/or French support. We almost gained that in 1861, but Prince Albert prevented it like the little Germanic faggot he was. It's probably for the best we didn't win though, as we'd be little more than vassals to them and fuck living under a bunch of pommy bastards.
Are you retarded? That's been a word since before the war.
Fucking this.
> AH YOUR RETARDED YOU HAVENT HEARD OF THIS WORD OH MY GOD YOU IDIOT
How many people in the inner city today must pay with their lives because Southrons were too lazy to do their own farm work?
200% mad
Sure, the South could've won. It would have taken a fuckton of shit they didn't get in real life, but the south could've won. Unfortunately, a combination of a lack of manufacturing capacity, no international support, and freak accidents like shooting your own fucking generals and having them die of their wounds later tends to put a damper on winning a war.
That being said, even if the South won, it wouldn't have lasted. The Civil War happened right before India and company started overtaking agricultural production, the Confederacy would have gotten fucking bodied economically and probably ended up coming back to the union within 30, 40 years tops.
Your stupidity is fucking astounding, Im not even gonna bother debating with you. Its spelled southern BTW.
Where are you from?
This nigger doesnt know about the importance of southern cotton back then. This nigger also thinks that helping the CSA win wouldnt have destabilized the USA.
Do you always speak on subjects you know fucking nothing about, you waterhead bitch?
It's far more likely to have balkanized first. Even during the war the CSA government had difficulty functioning and its constituent states mostly seemed to work under the principle of "fuck you, I got mine."
Too many user, too many. They could have at least sterilized the fuckers.
They tried, banking on the Euros dependence on cotton. It was a miscalculation as the Yuros were able to source it elsewhere.
Cause our identity has always been different. It’s hard for us mountain boiz to identify with people living on flat lands by the beach
West Virginia split from Virginia in 1863, the map is wrong
>Could the South have won, and what would the aftermath have been?
no, they ha no industrial capacity to arm themselves and global isolation as one of the last places to have slavery, which was abolished in every other white European nation as barbaric. bunch of fucking primitives
>which IMO was a closer contest with more variables that could have swung in the South's favor
What gave you that idea?
Learn something new everyday. I was the under the impression that the South had more farm land during the time. Guess I was wrong.
This map is pretty misleading. You should post the map that indicates border states that slavery was allowed but also didn't leave the union
The Union in fact had three times the farm acreage, much of it producing needed staples instead of cash crops.
And the cash crops don't mean shit if you don't have the ships to run the Union blockade and sell them overseas.
There is no way Alexander could have beaten the Persian Empire. Macedonia didn’t have any manufacturing capability period. They didn't have the resources, they didn't have the workforce, they didn't have the experience or the knowledge. Persia would have benefited from better generals early in the war, certainly, but this only prolonged the inevitable.
Yes, if they went into trench warfare and attritional strategies from the get go and put more resources into breaking the blockade.
After seizing the forts, the ball was firmly in the Union's court to conquer the South. But they wasted their manpower making raids into the North like retards.
>We wanted to send them back to Africa. They were your pets, quite literally, not ours. We wanted nothing to do with them. The fact that they're here today is 100% your fault.
1000x this.
>comparing preindustrial warfare to industrial warfare
And to be fair, logistics and population were a major advantage. That's part of how Rome conquered people. They had enough of population to send a legion into some barbarian dickhead's kingdom. Sometimes, that legion got its ass kicked. However, Rome could just say "okay, send in 5 legions," which nobody else really had the manpower reserves to deal with.
If they "could have" they would have, you imbecile.
West Virginia split from Virginia and became an independent state in 1861, but was not admitted to the Union until 1863.
War never changes. If you lack resources, raid the enemy camps. If you lack manpower, use what you have wisely. If you lack workforce, let someone else do the heavy lifting for you and steal the benefits.
Restored Government of Virginia =/= West Virginia
The South originally had its capital in Montgomery. They moved it to Richmond specifically so that it would be closer to the front so that they could issue orders more quickly/efficiently.
Plausibly, yes. It would involve the South basically blitzkrieging the North, seizing industrial centers and forcing Lincoln to surrender.
However, if the North refuses to surrender then the South is overextended and would quickly find themselves overwhelmed on all fronts.
That being said, if the South won then they secceed. Simple as that. However, in the long term they've got a massive war debt and no political unity. The South had the same problem as the Articles of Confederacy had but not the time to fix them. The South would find it's members picked apart by Mexico, the Union, and any European state that wanted that fertile Southern land for themselves and could fund an expeditionary force.
Actually, the Europeans likely wouldn’t even need to attack the South directly. Adding Southern states to its sphere of influence would be trivial for Great Britain, considering the cultural similarities and the South’s reliance on cotton exports to industrial areas. The rest of Europe wouldn’t be left out though, considering that a Southern Secession means the Monroe Doctorine is effectively abolished. I’m sure the Germans and Italians would be happy to recolonize the Caribbean and South America, possibly the French and British as well. The Union, sandwiched between Canada and the Confederac wouldn’t be able to do much more than defend it’s own borders.
They actually did have trains and factories.
Just nowhere near as many as the North.
That would have reduced their retain value. The idea was that you not only owned the slave but all their unborn children.
It's like beef futures. But more whipping.
>Could the South have won
Yes, by abolishing slavery and working with Lincoln to send all the niggers back to Africa.
Nah their only chance of winning was taking or burning DC in the first year or so.
Just taking DC the city wouldn’t mean much, they would have actually capture Lincoln and most of congress to win that way. Not saying it couldn’t be done though.
Do you really think that would stop the Union? Or would they just move the capital to New York or something?
That sounds like all the more reason to do it.
>This nigger doesnt know about the importance of southern cotton back then.
You mean the total lack of importance? Britain especially had a surplus of cotton at the time of the war. It's an easy mistake to make, though. The South made it, too.
Philadelphia most likely.
>France and Britain were actively considering backing the confederacy because muh king cotton
Not with India's cotton supply they weren't.
France had lost any foothold in India by that point.
It didn't matter if Richmond was the Capital or not, it was the only industrial city in the South, and the Confederates couldn't allow it to fall. For example, the Tredegar Iron Works was the only mill in the South that could produce cannons or steel plate suitable for ships. Capital or not, Richmond was a key city that had to be defended at all costs.
vatnik isnt a new term either dipshit. he just wasnt familiar with southron. get over yourself.
north had more men, more industry, better logistics
they were fighting the whole war with one hand tied behind their back
the european powers couldnt directly interfere because the south practiced slavery
and once lincoln explicitly outlined removal of slavery as a goal of the union there was zero chance of any foreign intervention
This, fuck traitors
IIRC, the British offered an alliance if Lee proved the Confederacy had a chance to succeed at Gettysburg.
I'm sure you know how well Gettysburg went for the South.
One man's traitorous scumbag is another man's rebellious hero.
There was no true end game for the south, it was always going to end up a war of attrition.
The north was the center of industry/manufacturing but needed southern resources, ie cotton and tobacco. They were not going to stop.
The UK actually supplied both sides, hedging their bets.
The war didn't even have to be fought, the South could have "won" by driving a deal to sell their slaves and get compensation for example.
An oathbreaker is an oathbreaker.
COUNTRY ROADS