Perhaps the greatest ball fumble in modern history>duuuur, the North always had the advantageWrong. The North had to conquer the South in order to win. All the South had to do was not be conquered.
>>18111265Pretty much. South banked in King Cotton, fucked that up. Lost the meme war, since the abolitionists and public sentiment in Europe hated CSA guts. Lost the diplo game to the North badly. Galvanized the North with its Fugitive Slave Act 1850 case, making slavery a distant "them" issue and bringing slavery to the door step of every Northern household. And Lee, while having some impressive tactical victories, bled the South dry with his battles in the East while the Confederacy just handed over New Orleans and Vicksburg over to the Union.It's incredible how the South had a magnificent chance of secession, and blew it because it just couldn't keep slavery in its pants.
Reminder New Orleans was their largest city by far and they just gave it up immediately
>>18111299Also the CSA's (and the USA as a whole) wealthiest city, the first to fall, and the CSA made no real attempts to reclaim it. Partly because the CSA had no way of even properly defending the city since they lacked a proper peer-level navy, hence the Union just rolled right on in.
>>18111265>All the South had to do was not be conquered.Yeah, that was what they tried to do and failed. Lee realized early on that the only way to secure independence was to take the fight to the north and force them to recognize this through force. He tried this twice, in the Maryland Campaign and again at Gettysburg. Both campaigns failed and it was over from there.
>>18111265The South had more industry and rifled guns at the start of the Civil War and still suffered more losses on the battlefield if you don't count disease deaths
>gets btfo'd on /pol/ in his three separate threads>comes here to his hug box
>>18111299They counted on finishing a couple of giga ironclads that would have blown Farragut’s wooden ships out of the water but their limited industrial capacity left them as unfinished floating batteries, and the river forts were half flooded. Once the Union fleet got past the forts it was over as the city had been stripped of troops for the Shiloh campaign. Biggest Yankee coup of the war, an almost bloodless victory.
>>18111376kek
>>18111362>The South had more industry and rifled guns at the start of the Civil WarCompared to the north? Later? No way, but the south was better armed than many think after capturing all those forts and arsenals. They nabbed 1100 cannons at the Gosport navy yard along with the ship they rebuilt into CSS Virginia. A homegrown armaments industry and imports before the blockade clamped down had them strapped, but apart from weapons they were backwards, unable to keep their railroads functioning or produce marine engines in quantity.
>>18111265The South argued that the States had ratified the Constitution through individual conventions, so they could reassert their sovereignty by taking the same steps. When the Southern States seceded from the Union in 1860 and 1861, not one State was absent in discharging this legal obligation. Every seceding State properly utilized the convention process, rather than a legislative means to secede. Therefore, not only did the Southern States possess the right to secede from the Union, they exercised that right in the correct manner. Each and every State ratification convention asserted that the delegates who were meeting to ratify the new Constitution did so on behalf of the people of their States. Each one asserted that all power originated from the people, but also asserted that this power was being exercised by the people of their several States through the conventions of their States. The states, as bodies formed from their separate populations and existing prior to the Constitution, were the parties to the Constitution – not the body of citizens of the United States as a whole. The States entered a partnership for the common good and loyalty to the Constitution, not the Union. The Union was to act as an agent for the States, not the opposite.
>>18111898*loses war*
>>18111912“It says here in this history book that luckily, the good guys have won every single time. What are the odds?” -Norm MacDonald
>>18111265After the first wave of secession, when it was supposedly over “protecting slavery,” there were more slave states in the Union, than in the Confederacy. Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri, Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland, and Delaware. That number only changed after the second wave of secession, over Lincoln’s illegal call for troops to militarily coerce the states back into the Union.
>>18111265It should be pointed out that many Northern citizens opposed the war and believed the South should be allowed to leave in peace. Dozens of Northern newspapers expressed the view that the Southern states had the right to peacefully leave the Union and that it would be wrong to use force to compel them to stay. Even President James Buchanan told Congress in an official message shortly before Lincoln assumed office that the federal government had no right to use force against the seceded states.On December 17, 1860, Horace Greeley, a Republican writing in his own paper, The New York Tribune, on Dec. 17, 1860, supported peaceful secession. He wrote:“If the Declaration of Independence justified the secession of 3,000,000 colonists in 1776, I do not see why the Constitution ratified by the same men should not justify the secession of 5,000,000 of the Southerners from the Federal Union in 1861...and when a section of our Union resolves to go out, we shall resist any coercive acts to keep it in. We hope never to live in a republic where one section is pinned to the other section by bayonets.”
>>18111946*dies*
>>18111265FOLLOW THE MONEY…The North chose to fight in order to avoid the anticipated economic consequences of disunion. A truncated Union separated from its Southern states would likely face two significant economic problems.First, it could not hope to maintain a favorable balance of payments. The South accounted for about 70% of America’s exports on the eve of the Civil War. Thus, without the South’s export economy, America could become a perpetual debtor nation forever at the mercy of its stronger trading partners that would deplete her gold supply in order to settle the persistent trade imbalances.Second, since the Confederate constitution outlawed protective tariffs, her lower tariffs would confront the remaining states of the Union with two consequences. One would be a shrinkage in tariff revenues. Articles imported into the Confederacy would divert the applicable import duties from the North to the South. Since tariffs represented ninety percent of all Federal taxes such a drop was significant. Even more importantly, a low Confederate tariff would induce Southerners to buy manufactured goods from Europe as opposed to the Northern states where prices were inflated by protective tariffs. Consequently, the market for Northern manufactured goods in the South might nearly vanish.
>>18111376>>18111993
>>18111265Lincoln’s War was delayed a couple of weeks due to a conscientious federal soldier at Fort Pickens in Pensacola, Florida. Abraham Lincoln, ordered, and secretly organized and sent an armed expedition to Pensacola to reinforce Fort Pickens - knowingly violating the standing armistice and unknown to the U. S. Government. Captain Adams refused to carry out the reinforcement. He averted open war on April 1, 1861, by refusing to obey this order. In his Report to the Secretary of the Navy, Captain Adams says: "It would be considered not only a declaration but an act of war; and would be resisted to the utmost. Both sides are faithfully observing the agreement (armistice) entered into by the United States Government and Mr. Mallory and Colonel Chase, which binds us not to reinforce Fort Pickens unless it shall be attacked or threatened. It binds them not to attack it unless we should attempt to reinforce it."~ Excerpt from The Truth of the War Conspiracy of 1861Huger William Johnstone
>>18112015No one cares you went to /pol/ once and assume this entire site is like 4 people
>>18112046Pretty sure he meant that more Union Soldiers died than Confederates
>The North had to conquer the South in order to winThis is a thoroughly debunked talking point from 1861, funny enough extolled by the more deluded Southerners and their supporters in Europe. The South's size was a highly dubious advantage at best. By all rights McClellan should have captured Richmond and ended the war in a year, it was an utter disaster that it dragged on for so long.
The south was never conquered. Conquering takes decades of thorough raping and genocide. Morality simply wasn't on their side. Pretty much all the lower class southern people never participated in the war because they had no interest in helping rich slave owners get richer, but desperately emasculated northerners or boring trolls still enjoy creating threads like this pretending their dorky ass has some ancestral right to inherit a slice of pride.Excluding all active duty military+national guard, police, everything generally considered armed forces, and comparing pure civilian VS. civilian populations, haha...I'd bet a lot of money that the south would win. Like, not even a competition. Southern people are almost universally stronger, more vicious and street smart than the mess that coddled northern city folk have devolved into, packed away neatly into their pretty paradises.Hush now before you stir up more than you intended, lest the south rise again
>>18112241You take pride in dying for Wall Street.
>>18111299>>18111310>>18111401All this talk is making me curious. If the Confederacy had lost New Orleans but won the war at a later date (maybe McClellan stages a coup against Lincoln or something, idk), what would have happened to it and other places that had fallen under Union control during the war? Obviously, the CSA would have demanded that Union troops be evacuated from all its sovereign territories, but not really in a position to do anything about it if Lincoln (or his successor) decides to just keep the US Army there permanently. Could we see Unionist enclaves within the Confederacy akin to the Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic in Ukraine?
>>18111310Got to admit, whoever came up with the stradegy of choking the south with a naval blockade was a genius. Could've just sat back until the south begged for surrender. With no imports or exports, plus the navy could devastate cities along the rivers and coasts, there goes 75 percent of your gdp. Plus many southern "farmers" didn't grow food. They grew cash crops for export do all that farmland couldn't save thrm either. Confederate apologists don't seem to understand that the only thing that kept the south in the war was gross incompetence from northern generals. Once they got decent people in charge, it was clearly over. It was just a matter of when.
>>18112338>the Confederacy had lost New OrleansNeither the French (culturally tie) nor British (1812 paybacks) can send own volunteers retakes the city for CSA
>>18112338If a strong peace party emerged and Lincoln lost the 1864 election there would be no chance of that. The army rapidly demobilized and nearly the whole navy was scrapped for a reason, maintaining half a million men in the South for a permanent occupation was simply not sustainable.
>>18111265They were doomed the moment they were blockaded.
>>18113454I mean, if the South had won, both sides would have to maintain large permanent standing armies regardless unless they agreed on mutual disarmament and not to foment insurrection in each other's territory (CSA arming Native Americans and striking workers, USA arming rebelling slaves and Southern Unionists, etc.) and I don't see things calming down for at least a decade or two.
