Could they have won if they didn't have inept generals?

>>136269232
Nah, they were a bunch of retards that thought cotton would solve all their problems. North had better tech.

>>136269232

no.

>>136269232
it's really the same as asking if the Germans could win WW2. Production, manpower, supplies, trade, etc. nothing was in their favor outside of very quick brutal offensives neither power could've won

>>136269232
That was a war lost due to severe economic strain and lack of war fighting infrastructure.

No, bad guys never win.

>>136269730
Bad guys write the history books.

>>136269232
The war was NOT about slavery or state's rights. Greedy white plantation owners wanted to keep their slaves and they used retarted white trash to fight the war for them.

>>136269232
>inept generals
The Confederacy had great generals. The north were the ones with the inept generals. That's the only reason the south actually put up somewhat of a fight. If Ulysses S. Grant was as inept as the other northern generals, maybe the south could have won

>>136269232
They almost did win, thrice. The invasion of maryland was soiled by sheer luck.

Honestly their generals weren't half as bad as the North's. Their main problem was supplies.

>>136269923
Not if they lose, which is all the time.

>>136270987
>implying there are any "good guys"

>>136271107

Good guys don't kill 6+ million Jews

>>136271180
they don't firebomb civilians, either

>>136269232
An Uruguayan talking about military strategy... Go back to drink mate while you watch your life slip away watching some shit football match between two teams of underpaid players on a pitch with no grass.

>>136270676
This, the CSA had a default disadvantage of being not as industrialized as the north

>>136269232
I figured their generals and soldiers were more competent than the north's for the most part; just outgunned and outmanned.

>>136269232
No. They had no factories, railroads, or lines of communication. They were fucked before it even started.

it was rigged from the get go, albert pike was a jew 33rd freemason general for the south. you think he hurt or helped the south? it was rigged by the freemasons from the beginning to murder goyim. wakey goy! George Washington, santa anna, Christopher colombus all JEW FREEMASONS>

>>136269232
L.O.L. I doubt it, O.P. God isn't especially fond of slavery, and eventually the practice is forbidden.

>>136271395
>that id

>>136269232
inept really? all it would have taken was one or two different decisions during battles and the war could have swung in the South's favor, mind you there were actual fucking draft riots in New York, the war was chaotic for both sides

you guys still don't get it, jew freemasons are running shit top down from police chiefs, generals, clergy, mayors, judges.

>>136271467
the union had endless conscripts of european immigrants coming off the boat from europe. while the south had a fixed population. there were more dead yabkees than confederates. 3000000 dead yankees. and quit calling it a civil war. a civil war infers the south was fighting to control the north. the north winning is why we have the mpst corrupt marxist fake government to ever exist.

>>136269232
Our generals weren't inept. Our political organization was. Lincoln was more shrewd than Davis.

The CSA was plagued with a lot of problems but inept generals wasn't their biggest issue. If anything the CSA had the better staff of generals and officers and had the better common soldiers. The actual problems the CSA faced is a huge list.

>>136269232
the CSA had the best generals

ww2 Truman Stalin Churchill all 33rd jew masons

Al climate scam Gore is a confirmed JEW.

>>136269232
The CSA could have won if they had better diplomats and mobilized prior to actually rebelling. Instead they telegraphed their actions and gave the north plenty of time to prepare. In addition they didnt utilize saboteurs in the northern states, fire bombing factories on a regular basis wouldve destroyed the common will to wage said war.

>>136271669
oh shit top kek

>>136269232

They could have won with the generals they had. They were winning the war up until Gettysburg, which they only lost due to a series of impressive fuckups by otherwise competent generals.

>>136271180
>Good guys don't kill 6+ million Jews
True, good guys would kill 6+ million anglos.

>>136272139
Many in the CSA still believed in honorable warfare. While it makes someone like Lee more admirable it was impractical. Lee and Davis both noted Nathan Bedford Forrest was way too underutilized for his talents.

>>136272139
the south lost because the north got their hand on order 191.
it may have been lost or maybe a traitor handed it over but if the north hadn't gotten it, the CSA would have made it to philly and forced the union to surrender.

>>136271180
>tfw the holocaust never happened but you wish it did.

File: CAN'T DETERMINE THE SHERMAN.jpg (46KB, 344x480px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 344x480px

>>136269232
Most historians believe that the reason they got so far as they did was because of the skill of their generals. Lee was considered one of the great tacticians of his era.
Overall, the sub-par industry of the South is what doomed it.

>>136269232
The south had better military leaders for the most part. You can see in many engagements the south utilized more of the principles of war than their Union counterparts.
Union always had the advantage with more troops and a far more developed industrial complex to back them. The North had factories, the south had the plantations. Cotton isn't going to help with cannons.

Also the union treated their soldiers more like cannon fodder than the free south, which has its advantaged.

>>136271180
>Good guys don't kill 6+ million Jews

They do if the Jews are the Bad Guys

Hint : Jewish groups just got it made illegal to hold office in France if you're caught being anti-Semitic or racist aka. anyone they don't agree with can be tarnished with claims and default unable to hold office.
No representation for you goy if you wrong think.

Also, there is seriously a bill in motion trying to make it illegal to boycott the Jewish athno-state of Israel.
Very America!
Jews-ehtno-state good for me ,but for they you be racist GOY!

>>136270577
This. And Checked.

The north had all of the industries. The South was an agrarian society.

why would anyone want to keep slaves

>>136271994
> the north winning is why we have the mpst corrupt marxist fake government to ever exist.

To play the devil's advocate, a Southern Democrat raised by staunch CSA supporters introduced the Federal Reserve.

>>136272139

The CSA would have won if the north was honorable enough to not use scorched earth tactics.

>>136269232

The south had far better generals than the north. They were outnumbered like 4-1 but still held out for a long time.

>>136271350
this. My town was occupied by Germans and bombed by brits. The Germans did fuck all aside from confiscating all firearms and locking up our soldiers in the local police station; the brits carpetbombed residential areas with firebombs, inculding my grandmother's house

>>136272398
>>136272359
Warfare isnt honotable, thats the mistake they made. Morality and war just dont go together. The south lost largely because of southern culture. Pride, honor, traits like that aren't conducive to fighting an uphill war with zero allied neighbors and 3 month shipping times for your closest potential ally.

Has a revolution ever been successful without foreign aid?

>>136272477

>Lee was considered one of the great tacticians of his era. Overall, the sub-par industry of the South is what doomed it.

It was unironically these two in conjunction that led to the Army of Virginia's back being broken at Gettysburg.

>South has been pulling off a damn good inaurgency, to the point where Lincoln has a very real chance to lose the 1864 election, which will lead to peace

>Lee knows this, but also knows that the CSA is at the end of its ropes both logistically and in manpower, and so decides to invade Union soil for a propaganda victory by occupying key cities in North

>>136269232
The south had better generals for almost the entirety of the war

The North had money, industry, and the Irish

South never had a chance

File: america bear.jpg (12KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 480x360px

>>136270008
>The war was NOT about slavery
>plantation owners wanted to keep their slaves

contradicting yourself in your own post, bold move anon

>>136269232
>inept generals
You've got it backwards; the war would've been over much sooner if it weren't for the Union's inept generals like McClellan.

>>136269232
>if they didn't have inept generals?

They had far better generals and that's the only reason it was close at all. The north had the inept generals with little combat experience and that goes for most of their troops too.

In the end population and money won the war.

>>136272744

See
>>136272787

Honor in warfare is a mistake.

>>136272992
>contradicting yourself

No I think he's trying to make the point that it was a war of the elites.

White people who signed up weren't fighting for slavery, they weren't beneficiaries of slavery. If anything they were exploited too, since they had to compete with slavery.

>>136272515
How Union soldiers were treated varied from general to general and what talents they had. I had a southern unionist ancestor who join the Union Army but he never saw major battles due to Grant realizing he and his regiment were worth more as scouts who knew Tennessee and Mississippi like the back of their hands than they were cannon fodder. But you are right.

>>136272522
That's such an impractical law anyway. You can just avoid buying Israeli goods and not openly call it a boycott.

>>136272589
Slavery was becoming increasingly unpopular in the south anyway. I imagine if Lee ever ran for President he would've abolished slavery.

>>136272787
Oh I agree and that was the union's biggest advantage. Sherman and Forrest were the smartest generals because they realized being a nice guy like Lee wasn't the solution to ending the war. You had to be a mean son of a bitch willing to do anything to terrorize and demoralize the enemy.

>>136272787
things will alot different next time. it will be an insuregency this time. like captain quantrell . bloody bill anderson jesse james and frank james. they would have won the war of they fought like those guys instead of trying to be honorable like lees northern va army. seroisuly the buahwackers were winning tKing union trains and murdering every last yankee.

>>136269232
> Confederates
> Shitty generals

Man the south had the better generals hands down. They had every other disadvantage, numbers, supplies, training. They had a loose militia go toe to toe and regularly beat the trained army. The only good Union general was Grant, and that's because he knew he wasn't gonna beat Lee unless he used his side's major advantage, numbers and logistics. Sherman was pretty smart too, albeit an absolute sonofabitch. His march to the sea had 0 ethics whatsoever but in a pure strategic sense it was a crippling blow.

If you'd have given the confederates some major economic aid from a european power then we'd all be flying the battle flag today.

>>136270008
It was about plantation owners getting pissed they spent so much money on slaves, and the north was still steamrolling them in production because they were advanced enough to industrialize. Then people were telling them to get rid of their investment because it was inhumane, so they found a way to rally a ton of people far too poor to ever actually buy slaves, to fight for their right to buy slaves.

>>136269232
Maybe, but inept is such a weasel's word to describe the confederate generals, as a whole.
Overall they were demonstrably better than Union leadership, they showed up the Union time and again in fights the Union should of won or came out at a full draw, and the Union suffered far more than it had to to attain victory, specifically because of the ineptitude and wrong decisions of it's leadership, than the Confederacy. The Union had consistent failures. The Confederacy, had disasters. Because it couldn't afford those levels of failures.
Arguing Confederate generals were inept, is more accurate by saying they were "not flawless" than "bad generals."
If they were "bad generals" then their wouldn't even BEEN noticeably bad tard-moves like Pickett's Charge, because these hypothetical mistakes the "bad generals" would of made up until then, would of have the Confederacy of been defeated already.

>>136273209
>>136272992
The larger implication of the north telling southern states they had no right to seceed is a portion that affected many CSA supporters substsntially.
>fuck you we are leaving
>no you cant we will invade
> Im just a tavern owner but I dont want my tavern burned down so im gonna sign up to fight against the north.
??? Is this really that difficult of a concept?
People signed up of all castes because it was in their self interest.

>>136273209
>war of the elites
>weren't fighting for slavery

they were by definition fighting for slavery, that was the whole point of the confederacy

>they weren't beneficiaries of slavery

yes they were, slavery gave even the poorest whites status a rights, also slaves were often rented out, just because someone didn't own the slave many more people used the slaves on a temporary basis

>they were exploited too

this I can agree with, most soldiers in most wars are fighting for something that they themselves won't really benefit from

>>136273309
>That's such an impractical law anyway. You can just avoid buying Israeli goods and not openly call it a boycott.

Individual yes, but is you advocate not buying Israel products in any form in writing or video you could be charged with said law.

>>136272990
South had plenty of Irish as well. But the North just had more people in general. Like, way more. Over twice as many as the South, and the machinery to keep them supplied at wartime.

>>136269232
CSA had the best generals though.

Te problem was industrial output and lack of railroads.

>>136269232
They weren't inept, they simply didn't have industry in the same way the north did. They couldn't supply their troops with the same quality and quantity of weapons that the North could, plus the North held more large population centers, meaning they could field more soldiers.

>>136269232
Wot m8? The South had fucking Lee. They had WAY more kickass generals than the North could hope for, that's why they even lasted for so long. The North just had all of the industry, the wherewithal to blockade the South, and loose enough morals to allow them to rape, pillage, and burn everything in their path. Also, the South was suffering mightily under inflation. So no, I don't think this has anything to do with anything.

>>136271180
Wew I guess Hitler and the south were all good guys.

>>136273697
Property rights>slaves
CSA told the feds to fuck off over property rights. Technically they were in the right.

File: cc.jpg (5KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 225x225px

>>136273876
>Property rights
you mean the property of slaves right?

logic bro, do you know it

>>136273441
> If you'd have given the confederates some major economic aid from a european power then we'd all be flying the battle flag today.

France and Britain were eyeing lending aid, but ended up going with Egyptian cotton. In either case, the Russian navy lent its support to the Union, keeping foreign entities from intervening.

>>136270577
Absolutely this. Something like 3/4 of West Point graduates fought for the Confederacy.

>>136273555
if you are fighting for an organization you are by definition defending the things that organization stands for

weather or not every solider believed in slavery is irrelevant, they fought for a government that's number one goal was to protect the institution of slavery

File: Robert E Lee.jpg (92KB, 472x851px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 472x851px

>>136269232
The south had the better generals. The south lost because NY state had more production than the entire south. The north could have fielded 5 times as many troops as they did. The south should have just destroyed their property and let everyone go home. We needed Hitler instead of Jeff Davis!!! Lee made only one mistake during the war the third day at Gettysburg.

>>136273972
Slaves = Property which is how it's involved. No one was fighting to free or keep slaves and no one saw it as such as one might view it currently. During that time it was purely about property rights. Slaves/niggers were property just like a lawn mower or your car. By law and constitution the southern states were in the complete right as the federal government overstepped it's bounds. The southern states also used the federal government as well to do the overstepping when it suited them.

>>136273470
The north also started to implement tariffs after they seceded. Like most wars, so many factors led to the actual war itself kicking off.

>>136270008
... so it was about slavery

Wtf are you retarded man cuz you literally contradict yourself here man

Pretty sure the South had better generals AND officers, because the academies were in the south and mostly were filled with Southerners. They literally got cucked because Slavery is retarded and because no industry, because of slavery.

>>136269232
>defeating Sherman
Nigga please

>>136274481
Niggers/Slaves aren't people they're tools or items you purchase like a robot for automation (Roomba). Many view it as they've been taught in schools or other propaganda pieces as a fight for virtue, morality, and all that's good. Simply put soldiers on both sides could care less about the niggers and were fighting because they were told to. North it was to preserve the union of states and federal power. South it was reform federal power under new leadership since the old one seemingly wanted to expand it's power.

>>136269634
If Hitler had made his crusade against the Jews a crusade against the Muslims, and went south in lieu of east and west, the Reich would have had atomic weapons and rocket tech before 1944, and control of the Palestine, Iraq, Kuwait and the Arabia. Germany would have been the most powerful and wealthy country on Earth for generations.

>>136275139
Coincidentally post ACW national guard/militias are hamstringed or curtailed by the federal government up to present because of that fear of a secession and a challenge to federal power again.

>>136269232
The confederates were so into states rights that instead of allocating resources to defend key strategic points on the Mississpir river, they had most pf their army defending Richmond, Virginia, because "muh, Robert E. Lee, I'm from Virginia, so I'll only defend my state". If they had managed to keep New Orleans and Vicksburg, they could have just sat there in front of Richmond and repulsed every single attack from their fortified positions and wait it out until the civilians in the North got sick of sending their sons to war as cannon fodder.

File: idiots.jpg (12KB, 306x164px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 306x164px

>>136274481
>purely about property rights
the only property the south was concerned with keeping was slavery, what other property were they at risk of losing before the war?

The Confederacy was established to keep slavery going, that is what they were concerned about it is in every independence document created by each state

this kind of argument is bullshit trying to twist words and call slavery something else

>it was about culture
culture of slavery

>it was about states rights
state's right to keep slavery

>it was about property
property of slaves

>it was about economic systems
the economic system of slavery

the core of all these other "rights" was the right to have and keep slaves, that was it

>>136275410
They had good commanders on the western front and a decent chunk of men too. All of the greatest battles are fought in the "west" or around ole miss and the tribs.

File: IMG_3300.jpg (165KB, 500x368px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 500x368px

>>136269232
>1861 CSA Population 9,103,000

"If the Declaration of Independence justifies the secession from the British Empire of three million colonists in 1776, we do not see why it would not justify the secession of five million of southerns from the Federal Union in 1861." - Joseph Wheeler

I don't know where you're getting that number from, and it's certainly debatable. I'm not sure where Wheeler got his number in the quote, either. Voting restrictions were much different then, than today. Women couldn't vote, neither could slaves, etc. It most certainly adjusts the nine million number.

One thing is for certain sure, politics & money have not changed in the last 150 years, or the 3,000 years before that. You've got a handful of people with money & power in charge, that tells millions of people what to do. They did it then. They do it now.

And by the way, it's a widely agreed fact that Southern Generals were the best. There's a very long list of Union Generals that couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag.

>>136275459
>the only property the south was concerned with keeping was slavery,
They were concerned about keeping their sovereignty
>state's right to keep slavery
Slavery was still legal in the Union durring the war

>>136275459
You seem unable to look at the war and climate or period in context.

>>136275618
>Slavery was still legal in the Union durring the war

They always fail to mention that.

>>136275555
Pareto Principle applies

>>136269708
This x 1000. The South was dominating bigly for a long time due to the fact we had superior generals and a more motivated army of volunteers.

>>136275549
the best Generals and troops were concentrated around Richmond, the states rights thing was so big that they couldn't concentrate forces at key points to defend strategic points like New Orleans and Vicksburg. By the way, why didn't the Confederates concentrate all their cavalry in the mid-west so as to conduct raids deep into the grain producing and industrial heartland of Illinois, Ohio etc???

>>136269232
If the South had held off hostilities at Fort Sumter and played the diplomatic game for two to three years, they would have had enough time to fill the war-chest with cotton money, establish a defensive plan, build or buy a navy. When the timing was appropriate, attack at Bull Run, press the advance into Washington DC. Mounted cavalry would have advanced from the east and taken positions north of DC to cut off evacuation of the US government. One battle, war's over.

>>136275459
Yankees always reduce things down to bullet points, and Ha-Ha! Argument won!

WRONG.

The Civil War is *THE* Most Complicated event in our nation's history. The most studied & debated event, and always will be. You Can Not reduce Secession to one specific cause, because that is simply not true.

The Nimber One thing that caused fully one half of the US Congress to leave, and millions of people to agree, was strict interpretation of the Constitution.

My Gr.Gr.Grandfather, and a million of his fellow countrymen did not kiss their family goodbye, tell them to look after the crops, then walk out of sight, many never to be seen again, just to fight for a rich man's slaves.

"The subject of Slavery, in any and every view of it, was, to the Seceding States, but a drop in the ocean compared with those other considerations involved in the issue of secession". - Alexander Stephens

>>136275555
He got his numbers from the 1860 Census, and he's referring to population, not voter rolls. It doesn't matter what a woman or a slave thinks. Voting men make their decisions for them.

The universally accepted figure for CSA pop. is 9 million: 5.5M free, 3.5M slave. It actually really isn't debatable at all.
(https://www.nps.gov/civilwar/facts.htm)

>>136275875
A Two Front War will do that to you.

File: IMG_4587.jpg (145KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1024x576px

>>136269923
I like what you at putin down.

>>136274441
M8 Gettysburg was already lost on the first day when they got too cautious and didn't take the high ground from battered, low supplies and morale union troops.

>>136275343
Then he would have to have invaded British and French protectorates with the same result as invading Poland... Muslims weren't seen by anybody as a problem in his era and his crusade was against communism anyway. Christ you're ill informed.

>>136276220
They were on the defensive and the opposition had a significant advantage in manpower. Small skirmishes between skirmishers or raids the Union almost always had numerical superiority. Fredericksburg is a good example where wave after wave of men piled over those pontoon bridges. Nothing short of amassing everything they had would've stopped that.

>>136276220
CSA General States Rights Gist was given his name at birth in 1831. The issue of States Rights was brewing long before that.

"The Declaration of Independence was not that they were to be one State, but "thirteen free, Sovereign and Independent States." This was in strict accordance with the instructions of their constituents. The people of the several Colonies would not consent for a Declaration to be made in any other way. The Declaration of Independence was forming a Confederation of Independent States". - Alexander Stephens, 1868

File: germany.gif (51KB, 640x420px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 640x420px

>>136275343
>went south in lieu of east and west, the Reich would have had atomic weapons
I doubt that. First, considering the unbelievable scale of the US manhattan project and the fact the German scientists could barely believe it was achieved, is a least some indication that alternate invasion routes would not be enough. Moreover, European and Russian military forces were only improving, so time was against his efforts from the start. Ignoring those threats would be a strategic mistake, even if defeat were the only likely outcome. If anything, I'd argue there was too much focus southward into the Balkans.

>>136276259
They were honorable men, and honor played a role in both those scenarios.

>>136269232
They could have won if they had been fighting to beat the North not just stall them out. The CSA figured that if they just kept beating the Union armies when they tried to invade the south then the Union would get tired and just give up. This was fucking stupid because all of the factories and shipyards were up north, so it was only a matter of time before the CSA could be completely blockaded and unable to match the north economically. By the time they realized their mistake and tried to get England to help, it was too late and they couldn't secure the victory in Northern Territory that they needed to get that alliance.

If the CSA had just marched on DC after the first battle of Bull Run they could have forced a peace treaty.

>>136276439
>Voting men make their decisions for them.

I said that. I agree.

>>136276941
I doubt they could've taken or held DC. The Army of the Potomac was stationed there for the duration of the war pretty much.

>>136276941
Oh and Maryland was sort of hostile to the Union forces but still having six figures worth of troops laying about makes things dicey.

>>136276407
you are intentionally confusing the motivation of an individual solider with the overall reason that the Confederacy existed

yes solders are motivated for a variety or reasons, many personal and distant from that of their commanders or nation

that is irrelevant, I am talking about the reason that the South seceded, the South was to keep slavery going

if they wanted to avoid a war they could have agreed to give up slavery immediately or gradually and there would have been no war, but the South did not want to do that

>>136271180
Good goys do however forget about the other half that supposedly died that weren't Jewish.

File: IMG_3301.jpg (81KB, 573x840px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 573x840px

>>136269923
I'm building a library of vintage Confederate history books. With a focus on diaries. So much history is written, glossing over personal accounts & opinions of the day. You really get a sense & feel, reading personal stories & local reports of things that happened on a local level. Several atrocities happened within a few mikes of my house, that I would have never learned about if I had not started digging deeper.

>>136277239
>if they wanted to avoid a war they could have agreed to give up slavery immediately or gradually and there would have been no war, but the South did not want to do that
You obviously don't know what you're talking about. There was no ultimatum or deadlines.

>>136277584
I got a book on my area and while it focuses on the southern unionists it does mention a lot of the shittiness going on in my county and surrounding counties and how it was borderline anarchy between gangs of bushwackers and just ordinary thieves and criminals.

>>136277584
Quite a few war crimes against the south. They usually gloss it over with a burned house here or such. They were nazi bigots fuck them or whatever.

>>136272359
Robert E. Lee was once asked, who was the greatest soldier in the Civil War, and Lee said without hesitation, "It is a gentleman in Tennessee whom I have never met. His name is Forrest.”

William Sherman said that Forrest was “the most remarkable man the Civil War produced on either side.”

>>136276259
Oh man aren't you a little general?

>>136277918
Forrest was criminally underused. His talents basically went the waste. If the CSA would've put him to better use it could've turned a lot of things around.

>>136278043
The states held more power than the federal government at that time (as it's supposed to be). They're likely viewing it with glasses of our current political climate. The propaganda we're taught also factors in there. The south is this unified body polity same as the north or union.

>>136273470
90% of all slaves in the South in 1860 had family ties on plantations that went back many generations. All those rich plantation owners inherited their (property). In other words, the slaves were long paid for.

The war was about slavery, state's rights, the economy -- a lot of things, really.

>>136275139
When the South was invaded, Southern States called upon their sons to defend their States, homes & family from invasion. These men went to do their duty, not as aggressors, nor in the spirit of conquest, but to protect their homeland from an unjust invasion.

>>136276597
Not true. The south inflicted far more casualties on the north the first two days. They could have withdrawn from the field. Pickets charge on the third day was what evened out the casualty numbers. In the end the numbers were about even. The south didn't have that 10K to loose. If the north had good generals they should have just massed their troops and rolled over the south armies. In the end that's what Grant did do.

>>136272600
A fucking jew

wasn't the capital completely unguarded after the first battle our something. not civil war buff.

File: IMG_3302.jpg (205KB, 700x1149px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 700x1149px

>>136272007
Look no further than Leonidas Polk.

>>136278532
You're not entirely wrong but you're also not entirely right. There were also southern unionists who joined the Union Army, one of those reasons often being their county voted against secession yet were forced into the CSA anyway. They also had little to no respect for the slave owners and aristocrats and felt attachment to the union their fathers and grandfathers fought to form and protect. Grant actually commented about them in his memoirs.

"We had many regiments of brave and loyal men who volunteered under great difficulty from the twelve million belonging to the South."

>>136278660
Its not about the casualties. It's about position. Lee shouldn't have had any ambiguity to his order to Longstreet, it should've been a clear "take the damn hill now." But instead they didn't do it was the union who got to enjoy high ground massacring CSA death marches towards them. Rather then the other way around. If the CSA was going to win undermanned and undergunned, as it showed, it wasn't from the low ground.

>>136269232
>> inept generals
Those inept generals wiped the floor with the Union army right up until Gettysburg.

>>136272589
Why did most of the Confederate politicians account for their servants in their will upon their deaths?

>>136279059
Polk was an interesting fellow. He wasn't a great general whatsoever yet he was still extremely popular with the common soldiers and was one of the most mourned at the time when he died.

>>136273697
>slavery gave even the poorest whites status a rights.

Get your head out of your ass. You cannot apply 2017 (logic) to things that happened 150 years ago.

These were different times, my man. Ideas you espouse today, were as foreign to them as an electric light bulb.

>>136277900
Checked.

Lincoln was a Liberal Homosexual.

File: 1451535419881.png (212KB, 1439x1080px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 1439x1080px

Their leadership was the only thing keeping them afloat for as long as they did (and union incompetence ). South needed more men, more industry or a total departure from the way combat of the day was fought.

File: Judah_P_Benjamin.jpg (13KB, 220x273px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 220x273px

The Confederacy you rednecks worship was funded by Jewish slave owners to protect their interest and stop Lincoln from mainstreaming greenbacks.

Southerners are the biggest good goys on the planet.

File: IMG_3303.jpg (27KB, 220x275px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 220x275px

"There's a great deal of misunderstanding about the Confederacy, the Confederate flag, slavery, the whole thing. The political correctness of today is no way to look at the middle of the nineteenth century. The Confederates fought for some substantially good things. States rights is not just a theoretical excuse for oppressing people. You have to understand that the raggedy Confederate soldier who owned no slaves and probably couldn't even read the Constitution, let alone understand it, when he was captured by Union soldiers and asked, What are you fighting for? replied, I'm fighting because you're down here". - Shelby Foote

File: cottonstats.gif (10KB, 526x304px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 526x304px

>>136277239
>>136276407
It was economics, like always. Not just the North, but also the global economy were threatening Southern industry. That's not to say their economy was suffering--quite the opposite, they very much wanted to maintain growth and not deal with large burden of abolishment. As such, institution of slavery was indeed central to this. Almost all of the tensions could at least tangentially be related back to slavery. Cultural, political, and constitutional disagreements were magnified with slavery as the catalyst. Still, summing it up as slavery alone is too simplistic

File: 1429437474724.png (180KB, 651x277px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 651x277px

Reminder that slavery is still legal in the US. It's simply been redefined to being a right enjoyed by the state rather than the individual.

>>136279353
Polk was good friends with Davis. He was Promoted not by abilities.

File: 1501372588483.jpg (169KB, 694x1000px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 694x1000px

>>136280477
> took 250 slaves just to produce 1 bale of cotton

Holy shit, lazy niggers

>>136280477
See above, Billy Yank.

>>136269232
>inept generals
The south had better leadership than the north during the war you stupid dumb grease fuck
The north has logistics, better equipment, and a rail network.

>>136279073
The Appalachian regions of the Southern States were strongly pro-union.

>>136278918
Yes

>>136280790
it's almost like people who are compelled to work with no compensation don't work very hard

slavery sure makes sense

File: union soldiers posing with dead rebels..gif (2MB, 1600x838px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1600x838px

>>136270577
The south did have good generals, Ulysses S. Grant was a mess.
We won because of manpower, production power etc etc.

>>136281075
Actually it wasn't just there. My ancestors are from the eastern West TN region and they voted against secession too. One major reason being very few actual slave plantations. The town my ancestors started in fact had an absolute zero black population the entire war and for decades after.

>>136277796
>What is the book?

North Georgia Pro-Unionists conducted many raids on behalf of the federals during both campaigns there.

>>136269232

Alone? No.

If the British had thrown in with the CSA, possibly. One of the biggies was not having solid lines of supply from outside the USA, and having a friendly nation keeping the seas clear for them (and threatening the coast) would have probably been enough to allow at least a temporary relief, if not an armistice.

>>136280149
Yup and then they assassinated Lincoln before he could deport the slaves.

>>136269232
>inept generals

The South had the better generals, officers, soldiers and cavalry

>>136276941
Many things happened during the war, due to the blinders they all wore.

>>136281144
Free food, medical, housing & clothing ... Just to go weed the garden.

>>136281415
The particular book I have is only mostly about a single West TN unionist regiment with light references to some other regiments so for someone in Georgia idk if it'd be particularly interesting. I think I remember there being books about Georgia unionist regiments though. Books on southern unionists in general are on the rarer side. Southerners tend to want to write about the Confederates and yanks want to write about slaves and northern regiments.

>>136281783
>we will provide you with just enough to live

>now you better keep working on demand and don't try to leave or we will kill you, also you and you children are our property forever

really makes me think

>>136281447
If france and Britian invaded Russia would assrape europe.

>>136277584
I've been meaning to read that for the longest, saw it in a little ancap library near where I work. How is it.

>>136282227
>How is it.
>*How is it?

>>136282108
Most slaves continued working for their masters after the war. Most slaves didn't exactly hate their masters or their job.

File: the doggo condition.jpg (39KB, 680x497px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 680x497px

There was always a higher duty to Virginia.

>>136281144

Yeah, I'm sure the Jews didn't like it either, we wuz kangs

>>136282108

That was a good deal at the time. Look at the alternative.

>>136277918
>>136278089
Nathaniel Bedford Forrest was Forrest Gump's father. Where can I read about him that does him justice?

>>136282369
Stockholm syndrome.

>>136273470
South was making all the money and the north (Lincoln) was putting tariffs so large and quite illegal on the south. Halfway through the war the north decided to take the moral high ground and say the war was about ending slavery. The north hated nigs more than the south did.

>>136277239
Really? But Virginia had already attempted to phase out slavery a few decades before.
>if they wanted to avoid war they could have done something madison and jefferson would not ever have done
Lol

>>136269232
CSA had great generals. You're thinking of the Yanks who had drunkards, cousin-fuckers and incompetent morons running the show.

>>136279353
Benjamin "Spoons" Butler was the single greatest general to ever exist.

>>136269232

The north won for two major reasons, never mind the heavy industry.

The North had the railroad, which allowed them to transport soldiers and supplies to various fronts much more quickly than the confederates.

The North out-numbered the South and also had a slave army all their own. For every American soldier that fell, several Irishmen were just coming off of the boat and tricked into taking his place. They signed up to fight for the North with promises of food, money, and citizenship.

>>136281144
So explain why welfare niggers are just as lazy today while the enslaved middle class pays them?

>>136269232
What? The south had the best generals. That was just about their only advantage going into the war. Meanwhile, the north had to deal with literal retards until they finally found Grant who was still a fucking drunk 24/7

>>136269386
Not quite accurate, but close enough. Put simply the defining factors in a prolonged conflict are population, industry, and willingness to fight, the south was only strongest in the latter, the north had far superior industry and population so that in a prolonged conflict the South never stood a chance.

>>136277239
>if they wanted to avoid a war they could have agreed to give up slavery immediately
If they wanted to avoid war they could have decided not to secede. Lincoln never made any laws outlawing slavery in the United States until the 13th amendment, the South revolted because they were butthurt that Lincoln wanted to stop the spread of slavery, not that he campaigned on directly ending slavery.

>>136272007
The biggest problem was that CSA generals liked fighting in the front lines, and they were usually picked off

>>136282108
Alexander Stephens' servants had free reign of the town. They cried their asses off when he was arrested. They stayed put after the war, and their descendants still live in the immediate area to this day.

>>136277239
>if they wanted to avoid a war they could have agreed to give up slavery immediately
What the fuck are you talking about
Union States were still allowed to own slaves

>>136282227
It's a hard read for several reasons. Number one is the info is pulled from countless (rare) newspaper articles, a d the way the author presented the info didn't make the book flow very well. It's not a narrative. I quit reading it half-way through, because of all the atrocities committed by union soldiers wanted to make me vomit with rage. Regardless about the first point, the book should be in anyone's collection that is a student of the period. There's a *LOT* of info included that is never discussed about the period.

File: IMG_3305.jpg (153KB, 620x412px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 620x412px

>>136283174
>The north hated nigs more than the south did.

Muh New York Draft Riots.

The Civil War was a massive and bloody contest between Northern liberalism and Southern conservatism.

File: IMG_3306.jpg (178KB, 655x655px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 655x655px

>>136283442
"With these qualifications we may admit the same right as vested in the people of every State in the Union, with reference to the General Government, which was exercised by the people of the United Colonies with reference to the supreme head of the British Empire, of which they formed a part; and under these limitations have the people of each State in the Union a right to secede from the Confederated Union itself. Here stands the right! But the indissoluble union between the several States of this Confederated Nation is, after all, not in the right, but in the heart! If the day should ever come (may Heaven avert it), when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give way to cold indifference, or collision of interest shall fester into hatred, the bands of political asseveration will not long hold together parties no longer attached by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of' the dis-United States, to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint; then will be the time for reverting to the precedents which occurred at the formation and adoption of the Constitution, to form again a more perfect Union by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separated parts to be re-united by the law of political gravitation to the centre!" - John Quincy Adams

>>136284353
German immigrant soldiers outnumbered their Irish. Over 1/4 of the union army was immigrants.

Meanwhile, New Yorkers were rioting not to go fight.

>>136290084
>>136290694
Fun fact if there was gun control durring the Civil War the New York Times would have been burned to the ground

>Other targets included the office of the New York Times. The mob was turned back at the Times office by staff manning Gatling guns, including Times founder Henry Jarvis Raymond.

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

File: 1481625894488.jpg (20KB, 505x466px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 505x466px

>This thread

>>136269232
They would have had tons of international and domestic support if they hadn't attacked Fort Sumter. No sympathy for southern terrorists.

>>136287379
To the South, the politicians were seceding over the Constitution. The common man was defending his homeland from an unjust invasion.
To the north, they were fighting over money, to preserve revenue. Slavery did not come into the equation until halfway through the war.

>>136275343

>reich ever having nuclear weapons

when will this meme end. it literally took the USA (read: half the world's production and the premier intellectial power) years to make them.

File: IMG_3307.jpg (137KB, 653x651px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 653x651px

>>136290933
The South seceded. Claimed said Fort in Southern territory. They demanded the Union withdraw their forces, and Lincoln sent a re-supply ship to the Fort. The South rightly viewed this as an act of war, and opened fire. It's amazing no one was killed at the Fort. The South obliterated it.

>>136270577
Stonewall Jackson lives through Chancellorsville and is at Gettysburg the south probably wins the battle

>>136272359
The north also grabbed all the Irish immigrants and drafted them

>>136269232
>inept generals?
I'm not sure if you're trolling or not. It's a well accepted historic belief that the southern generals were far superior to their northern adversaries. The north simply had greater industrial capacity and a larger population to throw away.

Also, the south politically and constitutionally was simply the US prior to 1860. All the south needed to succeed was time. Cotton, tobacco, sugar, and coffee were considered to be the staples of civilization and the global demand for these products influenced the economies and governments of the Western world. If the Confederate government were given a few short years to establish itself then their "revolution" or experiment would have worked.

>>136292208
Straight off the boat.

We had the best generals wtf. Problem was everything else was lacking from proudction capacity to population.

File: 55daf8e119dc6c8b0f336bc7d718fcde.png (207KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 500x281px

With me, who will come with me?

>>136281471
Where did this meme come from? There was never any plan made by Lincoln to forcibly deport blacks. t most he entertained the idea of encouraging them to colonize the Panama region to expand US influence

>>136293319
It was his nigger war

>>136292416
This, north had the manpower the technology and the resources, the South put up such a fight, and they were fighting for a cause
My teacher said it's a marvel they lasted so long

>>136290084
Muh civil war was about slavury
>WE WUZ FREEDOM FIGHTERS N SHIET

>>136270577
The South will rise again!

File: northern virginia.png (39KB, 2000x1111px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 2000x1111px

>>136270577
preach

>>136269232
It was rarely a matter of inept generals. The CSA won many engagements. What they lacked were the means of production. What a shitty stupid war this country fought and to no good end.

>>136269232
>inept generals
The Southern Generals were far superior. Jackson is considered one of the best strategic minds in all history. It's a damn shame how he died

>>136287025
This is spot on, except for the fact that the Norths 'willingness to fight' was so low (immensely negative) that the entire war effort was a race against inevitable coup, basically being fought in their own territory against their own population as well as the South. If the South could have dragged the conflict out they may have won by default as the North collapsed from within.

>>136269232
The South had better generals. In fact, they stomped quite a bit. If they had less honor and a little foreign aid they would have won. It's quite possible that they would have won with just the less honor part, as they took some major points early in the war that would have crippled the union if they torched the surrounding areas.

They got worn down by the lack of infrastructure/supply lines in the South (one of the reasons they seceded in the first place), and unfortunately for the South, Britain had Egypt for cotton.

Another key point is that the South (contrary to popular ideas) were not nearly as immoral as the Union. The Union was brutal shipped a never ending supply of Irish/blacks/ immigrants straight to the battlefields, and of course sent people like Sherman to devastate the south.

>>136269923
>>136270987
If the US had lost against the GB it would have gone down in history as a Civil War that the ungrateful and stupid colonists lost

File: IMG_3315.jpg (17KB, 180x269px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 180x269px

>>136293961

>>136295278
IN SECESSION WAS INVOLVED THIS GREAT RIGHT, WHICH LIES AT THE FOUNDATION OF THE FEDERATIVE SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT — IT WAS OF INFINITELY MORE IMPORTANCE TO THE SOUTHERN STATES THAN SLAVERY, SO-CALLED, WITH ITS TWO THOUSAND MILLIONS OF CAPITAL INVESTED IN THAT INSTITUTION. - ALEXANDER STEPHENS

File: IMG_3317.jpg (78KB, 460x599px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 460x599px

>>136297202
Losing New Orleans at the very beginning hurt tremendously. Also, losing Albert Sidney Johnston was such a big blow, and is usually overlooked.

File: IMG_3320.jpg (286KB, 785x1017px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 785x1017px

Shelby Foote once said about Nathan Bedford Forrest, that in hand-to-hand combat he killed thirty-one men, mostly in saber duels or pistol shootings, and he had thirty horses shot from under him. Forrest is one of the most attractive men who ever walked through the pages of history; he surmounted all kinds of things and you better read back again on the Fort Pillow massacre instead of some piece of propaganda about it. Fort Pillow was a beautiful operation, tactically speaking. Forrest did everything he could to stop the killing of those people who were in the act of surrendering and did stop it.

Forrest himself was never a bloodthirsty sort of man who enjoyed slaughter. He also took better care of his soldiers and his black teamsters than any other general I know of. He was a man who at the age of sixteen had to raise six younger brothers and sisters after the death of his blacksmith father. He became a slave trader because that was a way of making enough money to support all those people and to get wealthy. Forrest was worth about a million dollars when the war started, an alderman for the city of Memphis. He was by no means some cracker who came out of nowhere. All writers will have great sympathy with Forrest for something he said. He did not like to write and there are very few Forrest letters. He said, I never see a pen but I think of a snake.

File: FFS.png (818KB, 848x798px) Image search: [Google]

818KB, 848x798px

>This one buttmad Southern redneck revisionist.