Was there any possible way for the South to win (or at least

>Britain joins in after the Trent Affair.
>France looks into the future and decides to help too

Spain also looks into the future and hops in.

>>1937049

>joins

Fucking never

The MOST they'd do is recognize The South as an independent nation, which would kill Lincoln's chances of reelection in the North.

But British or French troops would never fight in the civil war

>>1937063

They'd probably help break the union blockade.

pretend to toy with idea of peaceful reunion post secession in a series of pointless talks until no one cares any more

>>1937068

For what reasons?

There was nothing the South could give the British they couldn't get peacefully (and cheaply) from other sources.

>>1937072

>The cotton embargo caused a cotton famine, a sharp drop in cotton supply from 1861 to 1862, decreasing the consumption and stock of American cotton in the United Kingdom and Europe from 3,039,350 bales to 337,700 bales and from 477,263 bales to 67,540 bales, respectively.

Think I remember reading somewhere that the British elite favoured the Confederacy but the public supported the Union dis true?

You'll notice that while cotton imports from America certainly dropped, the imports from India and Egypt grew in response.

America did not have a monopoly on cotton

>>1937080
Cotton was self-embargoed by the Confederacy. They basically told Britain and France, "We won't sell you cotton if you don't help us" and Britain and France replied "lol, okay gaylord, we'll just import cotton from elsewhere and wait for the North to defeat you, THEN WE'LL STILL GET YOUR COTTON ANYWAYS"

>>1936643

Stiffer resistance in 1863-64, especially in the west, leads to Lincoln losing the election and McClellan pursuing a peace policy.

That's really the only chance they have.

>>1937100

But we're assuming Britain and France had already recognized the CSA. Meaning no need for the embargo.

The larger the scale of the war, the smaller the chance the Confederacy had of winning.

The South initially hoped for a full break peacefully, which happened for the first 5 months between December and April.

After the war started, both the Union and Confederacy placed hopes that just one engagement will be enough to convince the other side to back down. After the first major engagement at Bull Run was a Confederate victory, the only way to win was for the Union to back down right there, but once the Union committed and expanded the war, it spelled doom for the Confederacy, who couldn't keep up with the manpower and industrial capacity of the Union, who could afford to fight a long, protracted war.

>>1936643
Keeping the Empire of Russia from throwing in with the U.S. would have been necessary.

File: A what am i reading.jpg (2MB, 4400x4387px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4400x4387px

>>1937299

File: 1473308685180.jpg (61KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 900x900px

>>1937299
>Keeping the Empire of Russia from throwing in with the U.S. would have been necessary.

Don't go into the Union.

Command Economy. Get the plantations and the slaves growing food crops instead of cotton. Get them mining and producing war material.

Get Brazil and other slave nations from the Americas to join the CSA's side.

File: Filipino Reaction.png (16KB, 429x410px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 429x410px

>>1937299

>>1936643
Absolute, rock solid support from France and Britain, so no.

>>1936643
Foreign intervention.

>>1937092
The British public were really, REALLY against slavery.

>>1937100
To further elaborate on this, even though the South was the largest supplier of cotton, by far, Britain and France actually had large cotton stockpiles leftover from previous years, which just made the Confederacy look like a bunch of idiots.

>>1937657
>>1937683
>>1937719
The Tsar was a firm supporter of the Union. He threatened that if Britain and France supported the confederacy, he would go to war.

>>1937843
sauce?

>>1936643
No

>>1937843
For context, the Crimean war happened in the 1850s. Russia wanted revenge and if Brittain or France intervened against the Union, Russia would have joined the fray.

>>1937072
>>1937797
>>1937760
It seems pretty appealing for Britain to support the South.

>Weakens a major competitor and damages their status as a major power
>Creates a New, Loyal ally who will basically do whatever you tell them to as they rely on you, can be crushed easily
>Can push them to ban slavery within a certain number of years or withdraw support
>Prestige from getting revenge on the US
>Divides US Atlantic ports, making Britain have total Atlantic domination

The only real reason they didn't was out of fear of Russian intervention, though they could easily destroy the Russian Pacific Fleet and prevent Russian troops reaching the States

In hindsight, it seems like a fantastic idea.

>>1936643
No
The union was never truely broken. A fight between brothers doesn't dissolve their paternal bond.
The south could never truely secede

>>1938494
What the fuck would Russia do? lmao. Destroy their ships before we could do it for them again? Ask very nicely if they could march through Germany to reach France?

>>1936643
>The Army of Northern Virginia marches into DC and razes it to the ground after First Bull Run

Yes, if Davis hadn't insisted on fighting a defensive war to hold some kind of moral high ground the Confederacy could have won a short war before the massive Union advantages in manpower and production power came into play.

>>1936643
Capture Washington after 1st Manassas

>>1938698
>>1938741

Capturing and burning DC literally means nothing

t. War of 1812

Im a huge Civil War buff. It was all that fucks Lee's fault. His dumb ass wanted to force a terrible fight when we had been giving the Union fucking fits. If he listened to Longstreet and just went around Gettysburg and threatened Washington I think we force a truce. The North at that point in the war was ready to quit but we gave them a reason to continue with that loss. Fuck you Lee GIB ME BACK STONEWALL YOU CARELESS FUCK.

>>1939847

>General Lee, how shall we defeat the enemy forces here at Gettysburg
>LOL, JUST CHARGE THE CENTER
>B-But, sir! That's clear open ground and the strongest point of the enemy's forces! The men will be slaughtered
>LOL, I'M LEE, DO WHAT I SAY

>>1939852
Was he a Union mole in charge of sabotaging the Confederation?

>>1939839
Different situations. In the Civil War a hard, quick, and brutal destruction of Washington after annihilating the Army of the Potomac could have cowed the north into not fighting a devestating war they provoked. In 1812, the British were the ones who provoked the war.

Maybe it wouldn't have worked but it seems obvious there's no way the Confederacy could have won fighting the war they ultimately did.

>>1939877
There was also no army to oppose Lee if they burn Washington and beat that army.

>>1939874
He was just an old fuck who was exausted from war. Up until then he was a brilliant commander who got us to probably the only chance we had to win. He just went full retard there.

>>1937299
this

the south could've won, if the Russian Empire didn't aid the Union.

>>1937851
>I dont know how to google
http://www.voltairenet.org/article169488.html

>>1936643
Sure, they just stay in the Union instead of seceding.

Vote against and obstruct to their heart's content as if they were a political party unto themselves while stacking the deck and ignoring the obvious in the name of traditional patriotism. Free states need not apply for admission to the rich white voting block.

We call it the republican party now.

>>1940447
Rot them from within, you'll win in the end.

>>1938623
Prussia may well have joined in on the Russian side. Remember, this is only a few years before the Franco-Prussian war.

Did ron paul hear about the blacks attacking the trump supporter last night?