Why did the south got fucked so hard

The north far outclassed them in manufacturing capability.

File: C__Data_Users_DefApps_AppData_INTERNETEXPLORER_Temp_Saved Images_1485971575771.jpg (61KB, 615x409px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 615x409px

>>33367650
As much as I think their cause was retarded they never had a chance to begin with.

1.)Logistically they had significantly less trains, look up the track mileage.

2.)Less manufacturing facilities/ability, they had plantations not factories.

3.)Less bodies to throw at the front.


Its kinda the same thing if you look at Germany during WWII. When you sit back and look at it today you wonder why they spent soo much time/effort/recourses on Tigers and not Panthers and Pz.IVs.

>>33367674
because the far right is retarded and always loses

>>33367650
Booth shot Lincoln

>>33367684
They won in November.

>>33367650
Lincoln virtue signalled so hard the Brits wouldn't support us

File: hillary-clinton-supporter-cries.jpg (45KB, 800x586px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 800x586px

>>33367684

>>33367691
how is trump far right

File: alt_right_pisser.jpg (130KB, 657x875px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 657x875px

>>33367703
>>33367691


>>33367706

>>33367706
>I know nothing of politics and I want everyone to spoon feed me information.

Look it up for yourself you dumbass.

>>33367714
>i dont know what far right means and im a faggot who cant answer a simple question

:^}

>>33367714
Shut the fuck up, shareblue. Trump is not "far right" for Christ's sake. The MK ULTRA is so far gone these days that literally anyone saying "hey guys maybe we should look out for our own people before the rest of the world" is considered fucking Hitler today.
>>33367650
They BTFO the North tactically in most battles. I don't think Lee was a good choice as overall commander. He was a brilliant tactician but his long-term strategies weren't the best.

The South got rekt because of a combination of:
>rural infrastructure, less railroads for moving materiel and personnel
>way, wayyyyy less bodies to throw into the fight
>no real navy to speak of to break the blockade
>very few heavily industrialized manufacturing hearts like the Union had in spades

Pretty much just that. Rebel troops were well trained and they had a god-tier officer corps. They even had very gifted naval officers, they just didn't have enough commerce raiders and ships-of-the-line to break the blockade. And they didn't have enough soldiers to turn back the ungodly amount of troops Lincoln was raising with the draft.

>>33367650
Same reason the Germans lost in the East, they couldn't blitz a win and instead found themselves in a war of attrition with a country with more men and factories.

>>33367710
>sucker punches a middle aged man 3 on 1 and then runs away
>doesn't even knock him down
>lol night night alt right

>>33367761
Bla bla bla

>>33367650
southerners are lazy

>>33367765
Ur mom made that sound suckin ma dick last nite

File: antifa-cuck-2.png (426KB, 602x583px) Image search: [Google]

426KB, 602x583px

>>33367710
So brave and progressive

I know youre b8ing but I sincerely can't wait for the war lads

They didn't have a navy and that prevented foreign resupply.

Also the decision to refuse to sell cotton to England unless they got recognition bit the south in the ass.

File: fx1pbkC.gif (3MB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 320x180px

>>33367710

>>33367825
>FROM THE GATES OF HELL

File: Trump_supporter1488807857027.jpg (68KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 960x960px

>>33367781
No ur mom made it sucking jamals dick

>>33367784
Cry more

>>33367825

>>33367834
>AS WE MAKE OUR WAY TO HEAVEN

>>33367650
No Navy and no Logistics.

>>33367834
>AS WE MAKE OUR WAY TO HEAVEN

>>33367674
>>33367735

Adding to this:

From what I hear, the rail lines also had different gauges between states creating a bigger logistical clusterfuck.

The South was counting on support from the Brits but didn't get it as the Brits could get cotton from India.

Very roughly, the rest of the idiots in this thread are mistaking secondary points for the real one:

1: The South lost because it went on the offensive in 1863.

As a nation, the CSA provided the perfect context for a drawn-out, asymmetric, insurgency campaign.

Robert E Lee, God Bless Him, wasn't in charge of strategy, either. Was too polite to contradict the civilian gov't, which meant that his application of forces was based on political inputs instead of military necessity.

In addition to a fundamentally unsound strategy, and high commander, the South had the bad luck to share the same time period with US fucking Grant, an epoch-defining military mind.

It was winnable, for values of "win." Just not as a formal, manuever-oriented, war. Which it turned into.

File: 1483851398515.jpg (765KB, 1200x1539px) Image search: [Google]

765KB, 1200x1539px

>>33367650
Introduced to the lovable concept of total war

>>33367911
This. The south just didn't have the necessary infrastructure to wage a war.

Also, Lincoln actually wrote the emancipation proclamation in response to intelligence suggesting that England was going to help the south. By making a public declaration that this war was now about slavery, England could no longer intervene on the souths behalf because they had already abolished slavery themselves. I mean, they *could* have still done it, but it would have been a political nightmare for them.

>>33367735
Why do people always claim the South performed better during the civil war when the overall deaths and casualties are actually comparable?

>>33368214
I thought the north had a bunch of phyrric victories?

ie. "The South" would run out of ammo and have to retreat

The only reason the South lasted more than a year was because of George Mclellan. And even then they were doomed.

Confederacies rarely work out even in good circumstances. There's a reason why the US as a whole dropped it like a rock and went to a full federal system.

>>33368319
Did the US ever get a worse general than Mclellan?
My history is shit but from what I remember he was fucking terrible.

>>33368254
Just look at the casualties. Overall casualties are almost the same and Union deaths are only 25% larger but considering that a majority of deaths in both sides were from disease it makes sense that the larger Union forces would recieve more deaths.

They only had one good general, and he was shot by his retarded brethren before he could do anything of note. Their president was a coward. Their armies were filled to the brim with malnourished, shoeless inbreds. They went on the offensive against a force bigger and better equipped than them. They got skull fucked by the two greatest military minds the US has seen so badly they still cry about it.

>>33367775
>southerners are lazy
...seems legit
that's why manufacturing is moving south.

File: dhju.png (118KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 800x800px

you can ALWAYS count on the autist on /k/ to respond to a bait thread.
maybe they should change to /j/ instead of /k/ because it looks more like a hook.

File: Screenshot_20170320-093911.png (133KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 1024x768px

Hmm, this is a hard one.

>>33367691
Confederates were democrats.

>>33367691

>This is what alt-kikes actually believe
More like the centralist won.

>>33367650
They would have lost sooner had it not been for political bullshit in the north.

>Fires the longest serving military man and ignores his advice on how to win the war until much later when they straight up use his plan.
>2 senior military guys decide they want to be in charge and essentially halt any actions to be taken during the war until both are taken out and replaced(these same guys are the ones who got the old guy above fired).

Lincoln had to pull a the emancipation out of his hat to keep the populace attention focused on the war.

>>33367825
>that dude with the pepper spray looking like a total limpwrist faggot

ahahaha

>>33367650
We had a pretty good score at the end, so Rees that

>>33368951

>muh poor grasp of history

>>33368586
I think that a number of battles that the south would have completely decimated the North were hampered by the South's shitty supply capabilities.

Whereas, the North had good supply and could starve out the opposition on the enemy's good battles

Whereas, the South could not starve out the North on the North's good battles.

Thus creating a scenario that the South is unable to take advantage of, regardless of the skill and ability of it's grunts and officers

>>33369028
Theres*

File: Screen Shot 2017-03-20 at 9.54.38 AM.png (59KB, 670x718px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 670x718px

>>33368756
Maybe you should wonder what is interesting to talk about for people who enjoy weapons?


>Pic captcha

Wtf! I'm getting fucking english lessons now

Lee was a union sympathizer who secretly threw threw the war for the north. That, or he was a complete fucking retard as far as common sense goes

>>33367691

Trump is a rhino silly.

>>33367650

Because they had less of everything and the Union had a genius military commander, while the south didnt.

>>33367689
>Booth shot Lincoln
Thus starting the Civil War. That's when George Washington led Sherman to Atlanta to avenge Lincoln.

>>33367650
Few good officers, abysmal industrial capacity and logistics, and the assumption that other countries would actively back them despite being a slave state.

>>33369127
Don't forget when Teddy Roosevelt halted the Mexican advance on Texas by riding back to back along the border for a year.
History is important man.

>>33367650
Becuase cotton is not a strategic resource.

>>33369178
Sure was good for making white flags and britches to shit in.

>>33367878

Guy looks pissed. That's expected from some one who gets sucker punched. While Hillary fags cry at every thing, get so butt hurt that they had to turn to violence. Typical losers.

>>33367650
>north drafting immigrants right off the boat
>south based on volunteers
wow i cant imagine how they lost

>>33369208
Wait, they only had volunteers? How the fuck did they plan on winning? Having the North feel bad for them?

>>33369028
What's a good score? The worst states in every metric lol?

>>33369220
I bet you the faggots probably think higher of themselves for it too.
>-b-but at least we didn't draft the irish!
>muh pure volunteer army

>>33368214
i think it has something to do with them loosing the war.

>also russia lost more people than germany, but I'm pretty sure germany lost ww2

>>33369282
I think they were really banking on outside support.

>>33367674
Yet still managed to slay more yankees than we lost.

File: 180px-Immortal.gif (855KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

855KB, 320x240px

>>33367878
>brags about sucker punching
>brags about beating people up while outnumbering them

ultimate faggot edition

>>33367710
That's clearly water they used to clean his eyes from pepper spray, his entire shirt is drenched.

>>33367650

industry and education.

>>33367703
I hate the liberal agenda with a passion but the far right IS actually retarded. Just not as much as the far left

>>33367650

The South's entire strategy was to wage a drawn out war that was costly enough to force the Union to just let them go.

It made some sense. Obviously the south didn't want to be part of the union. If they could make it costly enough the North should just let them be.

However, the South was wrong. The north would not give up. Since it turned into a war of attrition the North's vastly superior industrial base would eventually grind the south to dust anyway.

The south was also banking on foreign support. However, their agricultural products just weren't enough for a foreign nation to really give a shit about them. The large powers of the day Britain and France had colonies of their own and problems of their own so no one came to the aid of the south.

Overall the north was not giving up so easily and that spelled the end of the south.

File: 1482990006264.jpg (35KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 960x640px

What is so great about general grant?

>>33367650

South needed British intervention.

Emancipation and a cheap grain deal made this near impossible.

Union nearly screwed it up by impounding that British ship but Lincoln made the concessions to nip it in the bud

All in all, the guy in the stupidly large hat played a blinder

>>33369450

Youre partly right.

Youre forgetting that the South had the biggest cotton production in the world and assumed that their "monopoly" would force the Union to agree to terms and that Europe would intervene out of economic reasons.

What actually happened is that the Union blockaded everything and forced Europe to essentially create a new cotton industry in Asia.

In all honesty the South was retarded in economics, in warfare and simply lacked a real strategy.

They got what they deserved, not to mention the whole "slavery" thing. The entire reason why the South was so wealthy in those days, was that they built the entire region on the blood and sweat of "niggers".

>>33369470
He won.

Because the North played the scorched earth game and utterly fucked up entire areas whenever they made a successful advance. Especially the destruction of railroads and the pillaging of farmland destroyed the Confederacy's capability to continue fighting at length.

Generally the Confederacy was better equipped and performed better in battle for at least the first half of the war.

>>33369712

>Generally the Confederacy was better equipped and performed better in battle for at least the first half of the war.

Not according to this little thing called "history".

>>33367650
logistics

>>33369196
Bla bla

>>33369323
>brags about macing a girl
>talks about genociding, shooting, lynching leftists
>racewar now
>whines when gets punched

Fucking fag

>>33369349
Pissypissy

>>33369032
Actually, he's not wrong. The democratic party of today is much the same as the democratic party that voted against abolition. The 3/5 compromise and the preceding campaign to allow slave states to count their slaves for votes closely parallels the efforts of modern democrats to allow undocumented migrants to vote. Their arguments for slavery then (Who will pick the cotton? Black people would be lost without us to look out for them.) match modern arguements against enforcing existing immigration laws (They do the jobs Americans won't! It would be inhumane to force them back into their country where we couldn't take care of them).

It's fairly clear that modern democrats (so fallaciously labeled liberal) are the same brand of slave owning elitist that believes humanity would be better off as a tractable caste of proles entrusting their political agency to their betters.

Sorry for going full /pol/ up in here, but it kinda was already.

File: 1489722280490.jpg (17KB, 360x360px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 360x360px

>>33367650
Too busy chasing sexy cousins.

>>33369735
Don't get me wrong, Confederate forces still typically got BTFO by Union larger numbers and more coordinated and uninterrupted supply chains. It just wasn't an even fight on those grounds, and as other posters have pointed out the Confederate leadership was relying heavily on the bargaining power of its cotton monopoly to bail them out before shit got really real, which obviously didn't happen.

My point is that despite the utter thrashing that the War became, at the onset the Confederacy did have some tactical advantages that would have paid off if they could have been maintained. Confederate troops were generally better armed and the Confederacy spent more money and time looking into trial weapons and updated tech - many battles played out with the Union holding muskets and the Confederates holding repeating carbines, for instance.

>>33369067
Implying you’ll find intelligent discourse on a thread titled “Why did the south got fucked so hard”.

>>33369816
We'll get those niggers voting for centuries and all that

>>33369450
>The South's entire strategy was to wage a drawn out war that was costly enough to force the Union to just let them go.
History at this point should make it pretty evident that waging a war with no clear military endgame doesn't fucking work. Between this, Vietnam and now the Middle East, without even going into historical clusterfucks.

>>33369914

I agree with what you wrote, but

>now the Middle East

Is wrong. The Middle East was a deliberate political/economic tool to boost the arms industry, destabilize the national economy and essentially unify the people into saying "yes" to uncontitutional changes in both "anti-terrorism", snooping, patriot-act ... just to name a few.

Essentially 9/11 and the war in the middle east worked perfectly.

The USA now has a huge gap between rich and poor, when compared to the 80s/90s, education is more expensive and of less quality. Furthermore democracy has died a sad death and the police state is 100% trucking on with m4s in every cop car.

Lastly I want to point out the irony that the middle east wars were fought in the name of "freedom", while in reality the once great country of the USA lost all its "freedoms" because of that war and the causes of terrorism.

>-a concerned European who once looked up to the USA as the pinnacle of actual freedom

>>33369770
>Trying this hard

>>33369816

I was with you in the beginning, but you lost me near the end. You're right about one thing, the whole "parties flipped" narrative is a lie.

>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html

Southern Democrats did start shifting over to Republicans over time and civil rights was one of the issues that pressured them to do so. But, modern Democrats very much are inclined to secure future voting blocs.

>>33367880
>>33367907
>sudden sabaton on MY /k/
I am so hard

>>33370079

>trucking on with m4s in every cop car.

Errr m8 you might want to visit america before you make sweeping statements. It's like I could say there is a G36 in most train stations and airports in Europe but thats wrong... Oh wait...

>>33367650
Because the Civil War was the first modern war. And what wins modern wars is industrial and logistical power, not military prowess. The South was a backwards agrarian society that was completely incapable of waging war against an industrial powerhouse like the North.

>>33370309

I lived in the US for 8 years, furthermore youre talking about 3-4 countries.

>>33367880
>>33367907
>THROUGH THE NAZI LINES

>>33369770
What are you doing here? Your mom didn't lock the pc?

>>33367650
It was stratigically inferior in almost every way possible.

>>33367674
the train thing is only half the story, we never had a standardized rail gauge till well after the war.

for those that dont know, that means no express trains, no heavy rail to some places, and you would have to load and unload sometimes every 25-50 miles jumping gauge.

standardization is king in war logistics.

>>33370425
SJW detected

Fuck off cunt

Ability to manufacture better and move troops quicker thanks to railroads and such.

The South got more kills mostly due to the fact they had home turf advantage plus a lot of the military colleges were in the South.

>>33369127
>Implying reconstruction wasn't especially to punish the south, in no small part because that faggot actor shot the president
>Implying the South's reconstruction wouldn't have been a lot easier with all the negroes in Liberia like Lincoln wanted

>>33370795
>PRIMO VICTORIA

>>33371348
lol

>>33367650
they took their time early in the war and squandered their advantages of experience and leadership, then the union overran them with production capability and mobilization of more people

>>33367918
>drawn-out, asymmetric, insurgency campaign
Sounds like the perfect context for the United States to go full Sherman

>>33367650
Much poorer manufacturing capacity and Lee got too greedy at Gettysburg

>>33370365
>>33370309
Copenhagen has mp5 foot patrols with ancient leather holsters for their extra mags looking like ww2 surplus.