What would have happened if the US never attacked the Confederacy

They would probably conquer mexico and south America, but the north would still be economically more stable. The south would ossify into slavery and decay.

>>2549483
The Confederacy was the one who attacked

>>2549483
Eventual southern oligarchy where only the top 1% prosper.

>>2549491
>Steady economic growth
>become the richest country in the world
>slaves no longer needed
>deport all the nigs up North, tell them they can have their freedom there
>Heaven on Earth
Would have been pretty cool

>>2549496
t. Jew Yorker

>>2549491
nah

they would make a massive profit out of the slave labour and out compete the northern farmers by a mile

>>2549510
Arizonan

>>2549511
Bait

>>2549511
Like they were already doing, right?

It was a war of southern aggression

"Lincoln knew that by simply remaining calm and steady in the face of Confederate demands, hotheaded Confederates themselves would fire the first shots, making the conflict that followed a war of southern aggression. ... As Fort Sumter was reduced to rubble, the closing words of Lincoln's inaugural were recalled: 'In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors."

>>2549500

how is this different from modern day louisiana?

>>2549519
Nobody prospers in modern Louisiana

>>2549526
The Jews in the French Quarter do but that's about it

>>2549516
no

this time they bring more slaves from africa because its not banned

>>2549491
>conquer Mexico
>in a timeline where the Union is in no position to stop Maxie and the French.

Nope. If anything Mexico would be more stable and reclaim it's lost clay.

>>2549483
>What would have happened if the US never attacked the Confederacy

The Confederacy struck first

>let them secede in peace?

They had no right to secede, though of course the USA had no right to secede from Britain either.

I imagine that it would have eventually fallen apart or rejoined the USA since it only existed so that the elite slave-owning class could continue their way of life.

>>2549505
>steady economic growth
Wrong, South seceded when copper prices and the profitability of slavery were plateauing in the 1860s.

>richest country in the world
The South never industrialized because they had slaves doing everything, meaning industrialization and education were all shit tier. For all its faults, Reconstruction was at least an attempt at fixing this problem that was presenting. You can't simultaneously say that >5% of Southern men owned slaves yet all would somehow cash in on this oligarchy and become rich.

>slaves no longer needed
Slaves weren't needed at that time either. The issue was that Southern slaveholders styled themselves more as aristocrats and less as capitalists and saw the competition between free labor and slave labor as threatening their fortunes. The whole reason why the North became anti-slavery wasn't because they started caring for the welfare of slaves, it was because a bunch of White Northerners saw slaveholders moving West and realized they were using slaves to do jobs that Northern whites could be doing.

>deport all the nigs up North, tell them they can have their freedom there
Anti slavery doesn't mean pro black

>Heaven on Earth
The Confederacy with slaves was basically a neo-aristocracy where the South wanted to drag the rest of the country to fight its wars to spread slavery. I'd support the Mexican-American War, but you can't deny, especially considering the voting record on the Wilmot Proviso, that the expansion of slavery was a political goal of Southern hawks in the war.

>>2549510
>Fort Sumter didn't happen

>>2549511
>>2549515

>>2549491
>they would be able to conquer all of their territorial ambitions with no problems whatsoever yet couldn't even beat the North in a war on their home soil
The only way this would be remotely possible is if they used filibustering, which would've earned them international condemnation. The South needed Northern/Euro buyers way more than vice versa.

>>2549538

What a great idea. I'm sure by the 21st century they will have all successfully integrated into society and love white people.

>>2549561

>they would be able to conquer all of their territorial ambitions with no problems whatsoever yet couldn't even beat the North in a war on their home soil

Literally the only reason Mexico hadn't already been conquered was that it would have become slave states. If even Texas could beat Mexico, why not the entire CSA? Is there some Mexican super weapon you and George Zimmerman haven't telegrammed me yet?

>>2549592
Texas won its independence as a majority American settled part. You'd be dealing with a massive conflict in Mexico to enforce slavery on the population that would be a massive commitment and earn it the ire of surrounding powers.

You think the English would've just let the Confederates fuck around and reinstate slavery as a """viable"""" institution or that the Union would've let the South become an empire to their south?

I wish America would've invaded Central America/Mexico, but it would've been hard pre-1865 considering the slavery element.

>>2549587
thats the thing, you see, they will always be slaves

>>2549597

The English didn't bother to help France out in Mexico, and once the Mexicans kill the emperor that should mollify any European outrage with another outrage on its own. These things really happened, there are ways to play the game.

>>2549598
Ever heard of Haiti?

>>2549603
Yeah but the Confederates would be in an entirely different ballpark. If you read the original texts of the Alton debates, the logical extension of the Southern mentality wasn't just Dred Scott becoming federalized (Congress can't rule on the passage of slaves throughout the country, dissolving free states and turning the whole country into slave state), it was the reopening of the transatlantic slave trade, which members of the pro-secession movement were in favor of.

England would not have tolerated a country leaning towards this to gain that much power. The labor shortage of having to have enough slaves for territory that large would've required massive importing of slaves, after all, you have to wait 18 years for a slave to reach full maturity when they will have meaningful productivity.

>>2549597
I mostly agree with you here except one: a new Confederacy being able to conquer whatever it wanted in Mexico was pretty much a foregone conclusion. They didn't do so when the French were trying to subdue the area, they wouldn't do so here either against a force much more powerful than anything the Mexicans could muster.

The war in the USA was simply on an utterly different scale than the war in Mexico. The Confederate army peaked at 360,000 men, including 120,000 in the Army of Northern Virginia alone. They wouldn't need to conquer all of Mexico either, just progressively slice off pieces while crushing any resistance, and there's not much the Mexicans or even French could do to stop them. Meanwhile the French were able to keep all of Mexico occupied for a while with 35,000 men and 20,000 local auxiliaries.

>>2549483
The confederacy would probably go ahead and attack a fort or something

>>2549620
>They didn't do so when the French were trying to subdue the area, they wouldn't do so here either against a force much more powerful than anything the Mexicans could muster.

Sorry, I meant to preface this with "It's very unlikely Britain would devote itself to intervening".

>>2549618

Or you could believe the Pro South propaganda these days and say they would have abolished slavery once it became economically unviable.

>>2549511
>a literal ancient Roman economy based on slavery vs modern industry
Yeah totally

>>2549628
They almost certainly would have, dude. It would have taken a good couple generations, though.

>>2549483
By the 1920s or so slavery would probably have been abolished in both countries. The United States, having a much larger population and economy, would have remained dominant over the Confederacy, but with their main ideological basis for conflict gone, and having strong linguistic/cultural/historical ties, both countries probably would've settled into a reasonably friendly working relationship -- much like the US and Canada have today. There might even be some talk of peaceful reunification on both sides. Nothing like the prolonged faceoff between two hostile powers that most alternate history writers have imagined.

That said, even though that's far from a hellish outcome, I still think the war was necessary to establish the precedent that even in a republic it's not OK to just secede every time you don't get your way.

Also, "the Confederacy would conquer South America" is just about the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on here.

Life is not a game of Civilization IV.

>>2549628
Any Confederate leader would have hell pushing abolitionism through. The players in the CSA were dead set on their fucking slaves and muh tradishuns would override any logical or rational course of action in favor of feelings.

The CSA would stagnate due to low levels of industrialization, become subject to European colonialism, and invariably decline -because- they would never dream of giving up their slaves. To the point of their own self destruction. Soil erosion from overcultivation for cash crops would become hell and force the CSA to progressively greater deficit or more fancifully toward imperialism of the latin world. The latter option would prove but a temporary solution, there's just not enough wealth in the Caribbean by the late 1800's to justify conquest. It would placate the slave owners but the cost of keeping such land and slave insurrections down would quickly outweigh the short term benefits.

Ultimately, the CSA collapses to European interference or US-backed slave revolt. This is inevitable. The South was never viable as a country. Its natural borders are long and indefensible. Its terrain is harsh, variable, and subject to regular flooding. It's bisected down the middle by the Mississippi (a fact the Union put to good use after the fall of Vicksburg). Blockades cripple it. These factors were exploited by the Union during the war and they would be exploited by any conniving European power with eyes set on curtailing US hegemony.

Probably be similar to America today. It's hard to imagine a western nation not on par with the rest by the 20th century. Look how great Canada turned out and America compared to it for that matter.
It might have resembled apartheid Africa but still eventually end up being subdued under international pressure. It likely wouldn't be a fictional Man in the High Castle type of situation.

>>2549483
Everybody including the slaves would quickly realize that now the North has no obligation to play slave catcher nor let slave catchers into their borders. The south then proceeds to hemorrhage labor power.

The Confederacy would be pretty fucked then.

Or the slaves stay and realize they make up a sizable portion of the population and the south no longer has northern military muscle to keep "Haiti 2:Electric Boogaloo" at bay.

The Confederacy would be pretty fucked then.

Or they keep slavery and cant keep up with a rapidly industrializing world because of their autistic need to have an agrarian slaving society. Half of society forced to stay uneducated and remaining perpetually resentful of the other half. And keep in mind, much of the state of black america today is a result of whites implementation and innability to let go of slavery and jim crow. Now think of all that resulting baggage and make it exponentially worse along with pretty much no economy.

The Confederacy would be pretty fucked then.

>>2549534

pretty much this. Real nice seeing Jewlane graduates culturally appropriate cajun culture while they dance over the rotten corpse of New Orleans.

>>2549483
Non-meme answer, probably pretty poorly. World cotton prices would crash by the end of the 1860s with the introduction of Egyptian and Indian cotton finally entering the market en masse. That would've devastated the southern economy even without a devastating civil war. The central government of the Confederacy was also notably weak, with a great deal of individual state autonomy, so it is doubtful to think actually governing the country would have been very effective. What interest does a Virginian have in helping a Texan? Also, considering that they had just set a precedent of states seceding when something doesn't go their way, this will probably become an issue in the future. It would have been quite noticeably underdeveloped industrial, save for northern and central parts of Virginia.

In short, in order for it to actually stay together there would need to be major government reform which would have basically reverted it back to how the US government was laid out, with perhaps a few more nods to state sovereignty. The agrarian economy would face major challenges with the decline in reliance for their own goods internationally, and would be at a significant industrial handicap. With the decline in cash-crops and introduction of more farm mechanization its not unlikely that slavery would be abolished by the 1870s, as was the case in Brazil, though blacks would quite likely highly marginalized.

It'd be an English-speaking, North American equivalent to Brazil.

>>2549496
I pray this anon won't be pursued by ((((them))))

>>2549518
SHERMAN, RISE!

>>2549483
>What would have happened if the US never attacked the Confederacy

The same world we live in today, since the US didn't attack the Confederacy.

>>2549483

IMPOSSIBLE.

>>2549659

You are calling Ken Burns a liar???

>>2549510

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter

Confederates attacked first. The Civil War was the North defending itself. Face it.

>people actually saying the south would outcompete the north

maybe they'd have increased agricultural products for a decade or 2, but eventually the inability of the system to modernize as well as Europe having alternate venues for cheap raw products in their african colonies would virtually guarantee a major economic collapse.

Not to mention that the world at large was increasingly becoming less tolerant of slavery and unlike the african colonies where none of the colonizers had any interest in publicizing the conditions of other colonizers (case in point: Leopold II managing to keep the exploitation of congo freestate going into the early 20th century despite plenty of evidence being available), all of the Confederacy's neighbors would gain significant economic advantages by presenting the conditions of the various plantations negatively.
It is entirely plausible for major economic boycotts against the confederacy or at the very least all products created by slave labor.

And if said economic crisis was severe enough it affected law enforcement there would be a very real risk of widespread slave revolts which again the Confederacy's neighbors would have a market interest in supporting and sufficient justification for doing so that no countries would actually send significant aid against these revolts.

The end result would very likely be intervention by the North resulting in either full re-absorption of the southern states or even the establishment of a new nation founded by the revolting slaves.

In the end its unlikely the Confederacy would survive long into the 20th century and even if it did it would have such major issues industrializing its standards of life would drop below that of several central and south american nations.

>>2549511
Slaves can't buy shit, which lowers consumption, lowering aggregate demand, forcing suppliers to lower their prices and make less dollar dollar dosh wonga.

>>2552418
>but eventually the inability of the system to modernize as well as Europe having alternate venues for cheap raw products in their african colonies would virtually guarantee a major economic collapse
The colonies never did supplant the over-reliance on American cotton.

>>2549483
They'd beg to unite by 1900

>>2552479
>Europe having alternate venues for cheap raw products in their african colonies would virtually guarantee a major economic collapse


The colonies were even more behind techwise then America alongside other issues the African colonies had.

>>2552479
>but eventually the inability of the system to modernize

The Cotton Gin.

>>2549510
What is Fort Sumter

There probably would have been an interesting struggle for California and other lands in the west between the US and CSA

>>2552535
Is it like normal gin just made of cotton?

>>2549483
Maybe Lost Cause bullshit when the Confederacy inevitably collapses on its own because they didn't have the manufacturing or infrastructure needed for industrialization.

>>2549496
occupying fort sumter was an act of aggression

>>2552535
>Invented by a northerner to supply northern textile mills with easy to weave cotton

Not the best example you could've come up with.

>>2549538
The slave trade was already banned by essentially every nation
The CSA keeping on doing that is just going to result in the British ruining their commerce with their anti-slavery patrols.

>>2552645
>occupying
>was already there

This is your brain on Confedabooism

File: southball.jpg (1MB, 1072x4616px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1072x4616px

>>2552645
>your neighbor throws a grenade at your property
>it's okay because his property was kinda close to his therefore he should own it
Cuckfederates once again enlightening us with their nigger tier logic

>>2552905
>>2552915
Logically explain why foreign occupation of South Carolina's sacred sovereign soil is not an act of aggression.

>>2552942
>sacred sovereing soil

That says it right there.

>>2552942
Logically explain to me how was assaulting FEDERAL PROPERTY justified considering it was never owned by the state of South Carolina.

Realistically, the South would be a loose-knit association of states that wouldn't be partial to any type of centralized government. So there'd be plenty of economic bickering and lack of political union. Remember, their own Constitution even stressed the importance of state rights and during the ACW, quite a few states didn't help their brethren out. Texas was the one place in the South that had plenty of food and supplies thanks to trade with Mexico. I'm willing to bet Texas would secede from the Confederacy because they were once an independent Republic. Some other states might leave too which would cause a civil war amongst the Confederates.

And even if we can assume the South would go full retard enough to invade the Caribbean, Mexico and/or other parts of Latin America, they'd be bogged down so much from guerrilla warfare and being unable to hold their conquests. The European powers would be downright giddy that the US colossus was split in 2, thus weakening it and would treat the Confederacy as a quasi-colony with loans and concessions.

Ironically, the North would be much whiter in this continuity if this had happened. I'm willing to bet that the Northern states would be 90% white with a smattering of free blacks, some Asians, and the remaining indigenous tribes. The South would not only have all its slaves; it'd have to deal with Mexicans and whatever native groups that are left in Yucatan and whatnot.

>>2552605
The CSA could certainly try, but California and the western states had no slaves and its inhabitants would have no affinity to the South. I know California had quite a few settlers that came from the South, but even if they somehow rebelled, not only would they get quashed, the other Californians would look at them as retards because what's the fucking point of slavery there?

The CSA would be content to have all the states that seceded (even areas like West Virginia and East Tennessee that were pro-Unionist). It'd be Latin America that would be the focus of their imperial designs, but good luck with that.

>>2552962
>>2552964
South Carolina is entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory, navigable waters and soils within her limits.

>>2553232
Except it was off her limits.

>>2549659
>To the point of their own self destruction. Soil erosion from overcultivation for cash crops would become hell and force the CSA to progressively greater deficit or more fancifully toward imperialism of the latin world.
THIS

Up until the advent of cheap and plentiful nitrates and phosphates in the later 19th century, the Southern states pushed for further expansion of slavery because they didn't do crop rotation and the soil was depleted from overspecialization of cotton, indigo, and other cash crops.

Even if a CSA is allowed to go peacefully, it's gonna come crashing down within 20-30 years. By then it'll be too late to exploit the potash and nitrates/phosphates bonanza that Chile and other places had to offer.

Playing Devil's Advocate here, a CSA that survives a century after 1861 would make South Africa and Rhodesia look like child's play compared to the fucked-up racial controls and riot police they'd have to institute.

>>2553232
>is entitled
Ya got that right. Southerners are the most entitled assholes out there.

>>2552589
A location in the South

>>2549483
I wonder how long a slave economy would last in direct competition with an industrialized one. I can't imagine very long.

>>2553237
>navigable waters
>>2553260
every country believes it is entitled to its territory

The south would do well for a while, perhaps project its power over the Caribbean and engage in some imperialist projects in central America. When Egyptian and Indian cotton floods the market, huge huge recession. Slavery would be made illegal eventually, but greater state autonomy and an over reliance on the slave economy would fuck up the south for decades to come. Possibly some northern states might join the Union. Texas could go independent. The rest turns into South Africa basically and doesn't become too relevant again. Maybe southern Blacks get their own Nelson Mandela figure? No great migration either.

>people in here thinking the Confederacy would establish some fanciful Gulf Empire
Without a strong US to enforce the Monroe Doctrine, the Confederacy would've gotten cockblocked by Europeans at every turn and become even more isolated in the world stage, they'd eventually become the white man's version of North Korea.

>>2549483
The Confederacy would be a country of white third world people.

>>2552147
That was just a bit of banter. Northerners chimped out over nothing

>>2553266
This. Thats like saying the Nazis werent the aggressors just for occupying Poland.

>>2554011
>Confederacy would be a country of white people
Factually incorrect, it would be a racial cesspit on par with Brazil at best and Haiti at worst.

>>2553266
CSA =/= The South

>>2554047
this. Thank god the south lost. All these "muh heritage" fags are retards who are worshipping this shit out of nothing but blinded false nostalgia

>>2549483
both the union and the confederacy would be weaker and poorer than otherwise, and the confederacy would probably abolish slavery later because of embargos and stuff. Also a cotton based economy at that time was unsustainable because of India so that's something to consider.

>>2549656
They did have interest in Cuba though.

>>2549656
Why is it so ridiculous?
The performance of the Confederates in the war pretty much proved that they had competent military leaders and it's a miracle that they lasted as long as they did against a more industrialized and wealthy Union.

How exactly would impoverished and politically unstable latin american nations put up much of a fight against an organized confederate army?

The CSA would be royally fucked in the long run.

They secede, Lincoln's feeling really chill about it and recognizes their sovereignty, everything's cool. They're doing fine, trading with Britain and France for what they couldn't produce domestically, but things would start looking bad for them soon. The rise of Egyptian and Indian cotton might be staved off a bit longer if they try and flood the European market, but King Cotton's days are numbered. Not to mention the fact that they would end up an international pariah due to the decreasing popularity of slavery.America has the manpower, the immigration, and the industry to categorically outrank the CSA in every single field of life, and that gap only grows as time goes on.

Now it's the 1910s. The Confederacy has abolished slavery about a decade ago, but there's still an apartheid-esque system of racial segregation. Industry is non-existent outside of several major cities, infrastructure is equally underdeveloped, and the sad heap of near-bankrupt businesses collectively known as the Confederate economy are all getting desperate. World War I rolls around, and they leap on a German offer to join the war and claim more American lands (e.g. Arizona, Kansas, Missouri). They go to war... and promptly get their shit kicked in by the American Army. Turns out that forcible conscription of black soldiers armed with outdated rifles is a great way to lose a war. They are put under American military occupation, and are re-absorbed into the American

Even if by some miracle that they remain neutral, they'd definitely be in utter shambles when the Great Depression hits. By the 1930s, desperate to get some of that sweet New Deal revitalization, they sheepishly petition for re-annexation into the United States. There's a Great Migration of both rural blacks and urban whites from the South to the North & out west in search of better jobs, but they're also shit out of luck. World War II allows them to industrialize somewhat.

File: basedginger.jpg (16KB, 199x244px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 199x244px

WHAT'S THAT LEEABOOS?

I CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER THE SOUND OF BURNING PLANTATIONS.

>>2552528
>crushing your own argument in an attempt to handwave away a criticism of it
Well done

>>2555105
No like they colonies literally had shit output. It took them forever to really not be a tax burden and able to actually pay the cost and that happened post ww2 for British Africa.

>>2555173
Like the African labour base is so small that they had to do everything to wring out labour and money from them. Another issue was that polices that tried to get said money from that also was enacted with other policies that undeveloped the human resource of the colony because no one wanted to burn any money on it or risk giving them an inch and they go a mile and get haughty.

>>2555173
>argument is that South will collapse when supplanted by colonies
>recognize that this never happened because colonies are shit
>trying to explain away the crushing of your own argument by digging its grave even deeper
Bravo. I mean really well done here.

>>2554940
>confederates
>joining the central powers

by 1914 the CSA would basically be British client state.

>>2554940
>CSA
>German allies
They tripped over themselves in order to become more British than the Brits, literally the biggest Angloboos America has ever seen.

There would almost certainly be a socialist revolution in the US if slavery persisted through the development of modern capitalism.

>>2555269
Probably. Nothing like a civil war to reform.

>>2549620
I doubt it. The Confederate States would be desperate for international recognition and trade deals. Why would they piss off the French by ruining their Mexican Project when they already had their tacit support against the North?

>>2549659
>exploited by any conniving european power interested in curtailing US hegemony
Why would european powers attempt to prevent US power by attacking their regional rival and creating a situation where they could reunite?

File: cc.jpg (103KB, 1050x700px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1050x700px

>>2555557
In 1865 the French were already losing in Mexico and would lose power after the Franco-Prussian war which was already brewing and all but inevitable. The French may even pass the hot potato to the Confederacy as it were.

File: IMG_2581.jpg (83KB, 720x616px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 720x616px

>>2552905
We need a confedaboo version of this

File: 4cb96e4caecf1e3af283e154eefa93fa7c8a7d0dfd88f3ac13a17b71a141fa62.jpg (58KB, 390x544px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 390x544px

I named my dog Dixie because she's my bitch

>>2549511
For maybe 20 years at best, then mechanization comes and suddenly your field niggers aren't quite as profitable as just buying a tractor and not having to feed, clothe and house 30 of them

>>2552905
Not him, but Sumter was empty at the time of secession. The Union took it a week after secession.

>>2552915
>Le epic Lincoln would've deported the slaves may may

>>2556441
Wat? Fort Sumter wasn't empty.

Lincoln was sending resupply to the garrison there.

>>2556445
Yes he was working toward that, having realized that trying to force them into white society would be disastrous.

As it had been. The American negro in 2017 lives on an urban plantation where all his basic needs are paid for.

>>2556449
Sumter was empty at secession, which happened months before the war began. It wasn't empty when the war started with shots being fired at Fort Sumter.

>>2556458
>Yes he was working toward that
No, he wasn't. The is absolutely no evidence that Lincoln would have deported the freedmen. I have no fucking idea where this meme came from, but it needs to stop.

>>2556476
>country secedes on your Southern border
>many of its leaders conspired to expand territory to spread slavery (Ostend Manifesto)
>many of its leaders sympathized with armed struggle to enforce its beliefs (Bleeding Kansas)
>not defending yourself against them

Confedacucks are delusional

>>2556476
Major Robert Anderson moved troops to Fort Sumter as soon as 6 days after seccesion.

Are you saying it was completely empty prior to that?

Why would a fort under construction be empty?

>>2556494
That's completely wrong though, are you purposefully lying or just this confidently ignorant?

>Lincoln was involved in some very serious policy discussions about what the post-slavery United States would look like, and one of his solutions that he offered, drawing on something that had long been a part of his political advocacy, was to colonize the slaves abroad.

>Historically, the most famous example of this is Liberia, which was founded in 1816 and over the course of the next 50 or 60 years, several thousand former slaves migrated to Liberia and colonized it.

>Lincoln liked this model, but wanted to expand upon it, and he was willing to look in Central and South America, and across the Caribbean. He pursued this policy for the better part of his presidency, secured funding from Congress in 1862, and carried it out in conjunction with the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863.

>>2556502
>The Civil War was a defensive war on the part of the North

lol okay

>>2556502
>preaching history makes me a Confederate
Wew

>>2556503
>Are you saying it was completely empty prior to that
Yes.

>Why would a fort under construction be empty?
It wasn't really empty. There was one soldier there. It was empty in the sense that it lacked an actual garrison, which is true.

>In contrast to Moultrie, Fort Sumter dominated the entrance to Charleston Harbor and, though unfinished, was designed to be one of the strongest fortresses in the world. In the fall of 1860 work on the fort was nearly completed, but the fortress was thus far garrisoned by a single soldier, who functioned as a lighthouse keeper, and a small party of civilian construction workers. Under the cover of darkness on December 26, six days after South Carolina declared its secession, Anderson abandoned the indefensible Fort Moultrie, ordering its guns spiked and its gun carriages burned, and surreptitiously relocated his command by small boats to Sumter.[14][15]

>>2556515
Voluntary "deportation" is a far cry from forced deportation.

>>2556526
>one soldier there

Haha wat. When in the history of history has one single soldier ever been placed alone anywhere?

You better throw out some sources about your single man Sumter garrison.

>>2556537
Detzer, David (2001). Allegiance: Fort Sumter, Charleston, and the Beginning of the Civil War

>>2556550
>an entire book written 140 years after the event

That's your only source that the United States Federal Government had one man in an entire Fort?

What was his duty assignment??

>>2553444
South carolina is a state, not a country.

>>2556566
Sorry that I'm not sitting at the National fucking Archive ready to fucking scan a century-old document that is cited in an academic secondary source work for you.

>but the fortress was thus far garrisoned by a single soldier, who functioned as a lighthouse keeper
You should learn to read.

>>2556584
Found a source citing a party of engineer workmen also present at the Fort

https://books.google.com/books?id=2u9MAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA140&lpg=PA140&dq=history+of+fort+sumter+james+kearney&source=bl&ots=XETrEucBt_&sig=E40_TXImU2eRhOBxycNIcCu93xY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjS2fLYuu_SAhVH5mMKHezQBaMQ6AEIKzAG#v=onepage&q=history%20of%20fort%20sumter%20james%20kearney&f=false

You had a cute story though about your lone soldier.

>>2556614
>and a small party of civilian construction workers
Once again, you need to learn to read. They weren't armed. They were civilians.

>>2556632
Aha fuck you so was James Kearney, the lighthouse operator.

>William Holmes was hired as the first keeper of Fort Sumter Light at an annual salary of $400. Holmes died after roughly three years of service and was replaced in March 1859 by George Corlette, who died after less than a year on the job. James Kearney was placed in charge of the light on February 6, 1860 and served until the outbreak of the Civil War.

So I guess I was right that the fort wasn't empty and you were right that there were no soldiers.

You're still a cunt though

>>2556645
There was one soldier. Kearney. The fort was empty in the sense that there was no garrison which I clearly defined in this post >>2556526

>>2556650
Kearney wasn't a soldier he was hired on with a salary of $400 a year.

They hired old men to watch the lighthouses look at his two predecessors.

Kearney wasn't a soldier anymore than the workmen engineers.

>>2556659
Then there was literally no one garrisoning the Fort.

>>2556659
>>2556666
Ooh, wrong. Kearney was an Ordnance Sergeant who happened to be the lighthouse keeper. Jesus, how right am I going to have to be to shut you the fuck up.

>With the engineers, the troops from Moultrie, and Ordnance Sergeant James Kearney, who had stood guard over Sumter

https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/civil_war_series/14/sec1.htm

>>2556666
But it wasn't empty. And besides a garrison moved in 6 days later. With like 16 musicians which is funny.

I bet Kearney and the engineers were off put by all these new men. Then they start getting shelled and Kearney is all like I just wanted to turn on the lights I didn't sign up for this shit!

>>2556503
Iirc, both sides knew the game. Lincoln sent resupply because if the csa allowed it to be resupplied, it'd imply a recognition that the federal government had a right to be there, which was pretty fucking unlikely, and if they didn't, they'd attack, and as resupplying a fort that you already own (he made a point of not sending any munitions to deny them justification) is not a justification for atttacking, he'd have them cold. Shrewd, that. The thing is, I believe I've seen some letters from southerners at that time that indicate they knew exactly what Lincoln was doing, and took the bait anyway.

>>2556675
this thread was pretty good until you showed up

>>2556684
>preaching actual history makes a thread bad
Sorry that you couldn't live in your imagined scenario and that I had to ruin it for you with FACTS.

>>2556675
Oh fuck me I'm not usually so wrong.

Fuck. Well you bested me this time. But let it be known that you're still a cunt.

And what's with Major Robert Anderson just moving his guys to an unfinished Fort Sumter without orders anyway?

Sounds like a real hothead

Why does it matter whether or not the fort was garrisoned? Why couldn't the CSA just negotiate to have it released to them? How can you possibly think that if you're to remain a sovereign country, violence - that is, avoiding diplomacy - is the best answer?

>>2556717
The CSA tried just that. In response King Lincoln sent ships to resupply and strengthen the Fort.

>>2556707
Had more to do with the fact that he knew that South Carolina was going to take the Forts eventually and Moultrie was practically indefensible. At least Sumter had semi-modern defenses and it was really the interior that went unfinished.

>>2556717
They tried many times over the several months between secession and shots fired. The North refused. The whole reason shots were fired was because Lincoln refused to negotiate and instead opted to reinforce Anderson which South Carolina could not abide.

Argicultural backwards nation reliant on native population exploitation. They'd be 19th to early 20th century Russia tier.

>>2556730
I feel like the tale of Major Anderson and his retreat to Sumter with the cannons they could carry, then the ensuing preparations and siege would make a neato film.

The only question is who would play him and Kearney?

>>2556722
>>2556730
But firing the first shot was obviously a sort of gamble, that either a) the north won't retaliate or b) they will, but the south is stronger. I suppose there is a possibility in between, but regardless.

I still believe that there was an alternative solution here. The fort and it's command, prior to the siege, had done nothing actively against Charleston, i.e. fire shots or shell. Why then even attack? If they refuse surrender, are resupplied, etc., it's only significant if you're expecting war or if they're harming anything.

I think the most important reason why Sumter was sieged had nothing to do with logical decision making and everything to do with a feeling that allowing Sumter to remain Union was a slight on their honor.

>>2556780
The North was sending 200 soldiers and lots of supplies. It was an obvious preparation for war, a clear provocation.

The CSA had sent notice to evacuate the Fort and the North clearly began making preparations for war.

Much better to siege and sack a small garrison under Major Anderson than allow the same Fort to fill with more men only to have to take it eventually.

>>2556780
Letting the North reinforce was absolutely a non-option. It was a complete infringement on South Carolina's sovereignty (there's an argument to be made about South Carolina actually having sovereignty, but for the sake of argument and understanding South Carolina's reasoning let's preclude the notion). Consider that a sovereign state actively needs to do two things: it needs to be able to enforce it's laws within it's borders and it must not be ruled over by a foreign entity. Reinforcing Fort Sumter was Lincoln's way of saying "We don't recognize your sovereignty and these troops are here to infringe upon it." Or at least, that's how the South saw it and it's a very easy conclusion to come to given the rhetoric coming out of Washington and Lincoln in the lead up to the conflict. Firing on the Fort was a logical conclusion from the events that preceded it. Negotiations had broken down and the North played their hand in an attempt to call the South's bluff only the South wasn't bluffing.

>>2549483
They would probably reconcile their differences and re-join around the time of WW1. Tho tbf war was kind of a given.
Assuming it did work out like that tho the western US might be a bit different border-wise
Nothing would stop the confederacy from grabbing territory atleast to Arizona

>>2556818
>>2556828
It was, nonetheless, the incorrect decision, evidenced simply by the war the CSA lost. You can argue that it was the best decision out of a list of bad ones, but given the results...

It would have been best for a stalemate, given that the North didn't accept CSA sovereignty; I'm not confident a better outcome for the CSA would have been possible. At least in a stalemate, the CSA wouldn't alienate as many northerners as they did but outright assaulting and could possibly get somewhere after Sumter was resolved.

>>2556859
I think that North America would have balkanized into hundreds of petty fiefdoms, republics, confederacies and states.

That it would have began to resemble Europe but with much more hostile borders.

>>2556878
There are so many what-ifs and historian fallacy bullshit to apply to this post that there's no real point in bothering. The South did what the South did and that's that. It was a justifiable decision with no real way out besides concession which meant reabsorption.

>>2556886
It likely wouldn't have been that bad. Utah/Deseret would have left for sure, though. Kind of amazing that they didn't since they had a lot of bad blood with the government after the Utah War.

>>2556878
It was incorrect if you think that the rise of centralized Federalism was the best outcome.

With the resulting rise of a permanent American military that quickly subjugated everyone they could and led the American population into two World Wars.

Ultimately leading to the objective destruction of urban life, for profit prison systems, an education system which struggles in many areas to ensure basic literacy and the rise of Federal Police forces all topped off with the greatest surveillance system humanity has ever known.

>>2556907
So what it includes hypothetical shit? Not only is that half the point, but how can you argue that beginning a war you cannot win is a good idea?

>>2556907
I dunno.

With such an obvious slap in the face to organized government power what would have stopped Texas from leaving the CSA within 40 years if they came to ideological differences with the rest of the member States?

Maybe California would have made a more serious run at independence.

Wbo knows.

>>2556878
I'm pretty sure the Confederates knew it was lost to begin with, hence muh "lost cause". I remember reading an 1860 article where they interviewed a Charleston citizen the week after secession and his opinion was pretty much the following.

>Yeah the north could probably destroy us if they tried hard enough but they've been trying to destroy us politcally for 40 years, I wish they wouldn't.

>>2556924
>but how can you argue that beginning a war you cannot win is a good idea?
That's just it, though. This was not a foregone conclusion to both parties (hence the double down), least of all in '61. Even if it WAS a foregone conclusion, not going to war had the same outcome and it was an outcome which they South could not abide. Better to take a gamble at victory.

>>2556919
>muh central gov is da DEVULLLLLL

Go back to bed jefferson.

Thread theme song?

https://youtu.be/YAfHigPsC_s

>>2556965
Just playing devil's advocate here.

Are you really so proud of the fruits of the federal government?

>>2556952
I mean if that's truly the case and that was truly the opinion of those who made important decisions in the CSA, then sure, have a go at it. But I'm fairly certain that plenty of rich slave-owners have a strong desire for a stable CSA.

>>2556964
Sure that makes sense but we already know the outcome. The choice to attack was, I fully grant you, at least a little justified then. I still can't accept, however, that the choice was particularly logical. As you said, it was a gamble.

>>2556977
Democracy worldwide is pretty nice.

>inb4 classic fart right or socialist misdirection because both of you chucklefucks despise everything the rest of us stand for

>>2556985
>was particularly logical
Once again, the other option was an option which the South could not abide. Therefore, the only logical option was the gamble.

>>2556988
We are not a democracy actually.

The United States is a Republic where we elect representatives to govern on our behalf.

>>2556992
And why couldn't they abide stalemate?

>>2556996
You just said it yourself though, we democratically elect representatives, hence a democratic republic.

>>2556996

Exactly, a representative democracy.

>>2557001
Because it wouldn't be stalemate. Allowing the reinforcement of Sumter was tantamount to conceding their sovereignty to the North which meant they would lose everything they gained.

>>2557009
Good point.

I suppose I'm just not so am enamored with what Federalism has brought us to in 2017.

>>2557001
>>2557025
Also on top of this, Lincoln's refusal to recognize certain compromises between the North and South meant he was likely to go back on his "no abolition" stance.

>>2557045
You've only changed the topic - why couldn't the CSA abide not fighting? We know what fighting the Union did. If the CSA could not abide not fighting, then CSA was doomed to failure.

>>2557057
No, I've explained the situation and the alternative and you refuse to listen. Not fighting meant cultural suicide to the South

>then CSA was doomed to failure
This was not a forgone conclusion. The North had more than a few near war ending close calls given popular sentiment regarding the War.

>>2557111
Exactly, and perhaps if the CSA hadn't struck first, the Union would have capitulated.

>>2557119
Yes, letting your enemy have a free blockade of one of your most important cities and forfeiting any arguments of state sovereignty is absolutely the best way to get them to capitulate. Brilliant strategic thought. I would have never thought of that. You should teach at The Citadel or fuck it, even West Point.

>>2557140
The fort didn't do a thing. They could have come and gone as they liked, and I'm sure they did. I stated earlier that the fort actually being hostile would have been a reason to attack, but it didn't

But whatever threads dead and so is this argument

>>2557162
>The fort didn't do a thing
>letting your enemy have control over who comes and who goes is not doing a thing
If I sit outside of your house with a howitzer aimed at your driveway, I'm sure you'll be fine with it since anyone can come and go as they like even though in reality it's completely at my personal discretion. Maybe I'll even have my buddy come over with a rifle or two so we can be even more effective if we decide that we don't want anyone entering or leaving your house.

>>2555557
So close to hexes

File: HowFewRemain(1stEd).jpg (56KB, 300x425px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 300x425px

>>2549483

The guy is a boring writer (and a bigot) but Turtledove’s “Southern Victory” novels are fairly interesting take on what could have happened had the South won the Civil War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Victory